4 ms·
That number also strikes me as odd; it's improbably high. They're most likely referring to removing shares/links to the video, not re-uploads.
by parliament32 8y ago
That number also strikes me as odd; it's improbably high. They're most likely referring to removing shares/links to the video, not re-uploads.
- panarky 8y ago> In the first 24 hours, we removed about 1.5 million videos of the attack globally. More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload, and were therefore prevented from being seen on our services. 1.2m "blocked at upload". Not shares or links. Remaining 300k were not "blocked at upload". This is why Facebook's specific numbers like "4000 times" are so insidious and deceptive. It's what they intentionally neglect to say that's important here.
- bryan_w 8y agoI'm not sure why you think this point is deceptive. In the 24 hr period, 1.2 mil videos were blocked at upload 300k videos were uploaded, reported and blocked. That's pretty clear from the statement. Am I missing something?
- panarky 8y agoI see many quotes that the video was only viewed 4000 times, and that Facebook blocked it "within minutes". That's deceptive because it only covers the original video and not the copies which is really irrelevant. And it's deceptive because it starts the clock when NZ police alerted Facebook, even though it's Facebook's responsibility to manage their platform, not the police's responsibility. If the video was re-uploaded and not blocked 300,000 times, then total views is most likely in the millions. And Facebook continued to disseminate this material for thousands of minutes. I can only conclude these more important numbers are intentionally excluded from Facebook's report because Facebook wants people to focus on the other, meaningless numbers instead. That's deceptive.