4 ms·

Not really. There are 2 factors that play "against" FB having nice numbers. It takes some time between unique (or in some similarity cluster or whatever they h

by mic47 8y ago

Not really. There are 2 factors that play "against" FB having nice numbers. It takes some time between unique (or in some similarity cluster or whatever they have) content is uploaded, reported and taken down. During this time, exactly same content is not being taken down, because it's not known to be bad. So even if all the content was byte to byte identical, if 20% of it is uploaded before it is reported, there is no chance to have >95% block rate automatically. Once content is known to be bad, people (and bad actors) will usually stop uploading it (because it no longer works). Also people stop sharing it, because it's no longer possible (and FB delete all instances of such video from the platform anyways). If there is lame script kiddie that does not handle errors, then the number could be 95%, because it would continue with upload attempts. But normal people, or sophisticated actors will respond to errors and stop uploading exactly that video. 1 extreme example: with 1 sophisticated bad actor uploading exactly same video (through some fake/hacked accounts/pages, or whatever), the block rate will always look bad for Facebook: bad actor uploads N videos before being blocked. Once blocked (on video N+1), bad actor will stop. The block rate will be here 1/(N+1), which will be way less 80% (FB's current case) for any N > 0. What did I try to say? Percentage of what is being blocked does not make sense, since it also depend on how fast is attacker detecting that is being blocked. If fast, the number will always look bad. If attacker does not give a shit, the number will look awesome.

43920 8y ago
It seems like you could fix this (at least for exactly identical content) by generating a fingerprint for each file as it is uploaded. If a file with a given fingerprint is marked as bad, then all existing files with the same fingerprint would be removed (or maybe just recently-uploaded ones, in order to avoid removing too many legitimate files). That being said, it would probably be pretty simple to work around this by varying the content slightly on each upload.
- mic47 8y ago
  What I said already assumes that you delete the all instances of that content when you find out it's bad. FB already does this. Problem is, that people see content before it is taken down. And once it's taken down, bad actors stop uploading it, and slightly change it (enough to make it pass existing upload filter).

by mic47 8y ago

43920 8y ago

It seems like you could fix this (at least for exactly identical content) by generating a fingerprint for each file as it is uploaded. If a file with a given fingerprint is marked as bad, then all existing files with the same fingerprint would be removed (or maybe just recently-uploaded ones, in order to avoid removing too many legitimate files). That being said, it would probably be pretty simple to work around this by varying the content slightly on each upload.

mic47 8y ago
What I said already assumes that you delete the all instances of that content when you find out it's bad. FB already does this. Problem is, that people see content before it is taken down. And once it's taken down, bad actors stop uploading it, and slightly change it (enough to make it pass existing upload filter).