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.

>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?

The number have to be limited because even most state actors have limited manpower to operate trendsetting accounts.

I'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.

I wouldn’t expect so, they have nothing to gain form it.

Which 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.

It 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.

I unequivocally do not trust them, hence my bringing it up. :)

An 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.

Indeed that's why I wrote that it's imperative for Facebook to make their platform seem trustworthy.

That's a misrepresentation.

What 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.

It 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.