5 ms·
>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
by 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.