9 ms·
It says the accounts have to be central to the operation to be counted here. Accounts that just repeat disinformation/misinformation from other places, or infla
by sp332 5y ago
It 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.