4 ms·
> The video was viewed fewer than 200 times during the live broadcast. No users reported the video during the live broadcast. Including the views during the liv
by CharlesColeman 8y ago
> The video was viewed fewer than 200 times during the live broadcast. No users reported the video during the live broadcast. Including the views during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4000 times in total before being removed from Facebook.
> The first user report on the original video came in 29 minutes after the video started, and 12 minutes after the live broadcast ended.
How long did it take them to react to that initial report and remove the video? It's notable that they included so many statistics, but left that one out.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Nition 8y agoIt sounds like they didn't respond to the reports on the original video at all: > We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of [the New Zealand Police's] outreach to us. They don't say how long it was until NZ police contacted them though, it could have been right after the reports came though.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago> it could have been right after the reports came though. If they reacted quickly, I think they'd have said so. Their evasiveness and omissions lead me to think it took them an embarrassingly long time to react.
- panarky 8y ago> They don't say how long it was until NZ police contacted them This is Facebook's deceptive spin. It's not the responsibility of NZ police to control Facebook's platform, yet Facebook acts as if they have zero responsibility until they're notified. The important numbers here are: (1) how many minutes from the beginning of the livestream until the last re-uploaded copy was removed? (2) how many Facebook users viewed even part of the livestream or any of the re-uploaded copies? The answers are likely (1) thousands of minutes and (2) millions of views. Naturally these two numbers are not to be found anywhere in Facebook's deceptive explanation.