4 ms·
Perhaps I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but 123 accounts seems like a surprisingly low number.
by jjulius 5y ago
Perhaps I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but 123 accounts seems like a surprisingly low number.
- sp332 5y agoIt says the accounts have to be central to the operation to be counted here. Accounts that just repeat disinformation/misinformation from other places, or inflate like counts, aren't included.
- jjulius 5y ago>It says the accounts have to be central to the operation to be counted here. Ah ha, I missed that nugget. That said, I'm still surprised that, globally, that number is so low. >Accounts that just repeat disinformation/misinformation from other places, or inflate like counts, aren't included Does FB ever make such information available publicly?
- NegativeLatency 5y agoI wouldn’t expect so, they have nothing to gain form it.
- KittenInABox 5y agoI'm not surprised the number is so low. Isn't it the case that only 1% of people cause 99% of the content or something? It'd be only a small number of core intentionally malicious actors could cause other people to follow along in good faith, especially in today's social media pressure to speak on controversies.
- varjag 5y agoThe number have to be limited because even most state actors have limited manpower to operate trendsetting accounts.
- skeeter2020 5y agoWhich to me sounds like they remove the malfunctioning alarm after it's been rebroadcast to a huge audience. FB is addressing a distribution problem by purposely treating it as a sourcing problem. They're preapred to remove dozens of accounts but not reduce the millions of shares.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- na85 5y agoIt is imperative for Facebook to make their platform seem trustworthy. Do you trust that Facebook is reporting these numbers in good faith? This is the same company that ran unethical psychological experiments on its users, without their consent, in attempts to cause depression-like-symptoms.
- jjulius 5y agoI unequivocally do not trust them, hence my bringing it up. :)
- alisonkisk 5y agoThat's a misrepresentation.
- spoonjim 5y agoWhat part of it is a misrepresentation? Just because it sounds beyond the pale doesn’t mean it’s a misrepresentation; the action it describes could be (is) beyond the pale.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 5y agoAn image of trustworthiness is much more important to them than actually being trustworthy. For them to be actual-trustworthy to the maximum number of people/accounts would involve a level of imagination and remodeling that I don't think they're capable of. Because it's a hard problem made worse by scale.
- na85 5y agoIndeed that's why I wrote that it's imperative for Facebook to make their platform seem trustworthy.
- wyldfire 5y agoIt does, but is the interval that they did that work only during May 2021? I think this summary page is pretty pithy but then I read the report and it's not too detailed either. I was optimistic to see such a report being published by FB but now I wonder if this effort is adequately resourced.