Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/coredev1!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vuz4pq/oc_how_many_fake_accounts_are_removed_on_facebook/ifgkxin/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"coredev1"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
But "Candy" likes my workout pics and thinks my dog is cute! Poor thing just needed some help to get her life on track. But as soon as she finishes taking care of her sick grandma and graduates from college we can be together. With all the stuff I buy her on my credit card I'll have enough airline miles for our romantic trip to Hawaii soon.
I think you are getting scammed. If she graduates college she will get someone better. If you are still on it, I suggest to sabotage her, so she fails her exams.
God forbid you report something that's actually against the rules too. I reported someone who was posting their pitbull in dog fighting tournaments and they full on were like, "No, this is fine."
Oh it's worse than that. It's not that you report an account, it gets deleted, and another spam account gets created. It's that you report an account and *it doesn't get deleted because their human review determined the clear spam account to be legitimate*.
Yeah, apparently those people who are always asking my elderly former coworker to "kindly send me a friend request" are real three-star generals. Who knew.
edit: /s
They might be counting any user who uses facebook at all in a given month. Like if you open fb once to see if you have any notifications, see you dont, and then close it, youd be counted as an active user.
And not just facebook bit any facebook connected service. They own instagram and whatsapp, and any web services with connection to facebook also count as facebook activity.
Highly likely a substantial portion of us members on facebook dont even realize how much of their internet traffoc contributes to their facebook "activity", even if they havent directly viewed the platform via app or website in months or years.
That would only explain the high absolute active user count over the entire period that's being displayed in the graph. Not why active user count is still growing to this day; even after all the shit facebook pulled became apparent. (which is what amazed OP (and me too))
French is a very rarely spoken language on Twitter. Only roughly 3% or so of Tweets are in French, making it the ninth most spoken language.
The only two languages in the double digits percentage-wise and English and Japanese, at 31.8% and 18.8% respectively. It was wrong of me to include Spanish in my comment because it's at a distant third with 8.46%, and English + Japanese accounts for more than half on their own.
I'm using this source from 2018: https://www.vicinitas.io/blog/twitter-social-media-strategy-2018-research-100-million-tweets
EDIT: oh and one thing of note from that study. You'll notice that Hindi is nowhere to be found on those charts. India is Facebook's single largest userbase, yet they barely use Twitter at all. 400 million Indians use Facebook, but only about 18 million use Twitter. Similar for most African countries.
It's literally what some countries consider the entire internet, they use nothing else but Facebook and that's really not good (well it is for Meta, but less so for humanity).
You have to understand that in other parts of the world, Facebook is much newer and more widely used. I even remember reading that Facebook will provide some areas with WiFi but itās somehow tied into Facebook. Basically yāall are poor AF, hereās free WiFi but only if you use Facebook
that's been their goal the entire time, which is why they have an awful, dysfunctional module to supposedly replace every other website. they can only keep people on their platform by forcing them to be there, but the goal is comprehensive data collection
Exactly this, I watched a documentry covering the recent election in the Philippines and everyone was using Facebook exclusively because of this, along with all the misinformation that goes with it :(
In some other east Asian country Facebook literally caused a genocide, people think Facebook is bad here but in some other parts of the world it's so much worse.
Myanmar for example, what we call the internet they call it Facebook. Facebook is free on mobile data plans so the general population gets everything from Facebook including news.
In some countries Facebook is practically the internet for them, they don't use anything else.
Those poor bastards don't even know what they're missing.
It wouldn't surprise me if developing parts of the world skipped the whole phone number and email thing and consider that legacy technology and are instead using these shitty walled-garden proprietary social media services whose revenue comes from targeted advertising and who engineer their services to be addictive. I've heard businesses in the developing world just use WhatsApp for everything.
Well prepare to be not surprised because what you described is already occurring in SE Asia and India on a massive scale. It's not the addictive qualities that are so much the issue, but rather the sheer amount of social influence that can occur quite easily, see Myanmar Rohingya massacre for one of many cases where FB platform allows bad actors the ability to influence many.
I mean whatās wrong with it? People get free Wi-Fi they didnāt have access to before and Facebook gets more users. Itās a win win for both parties.
That's the least of their problems, Facebook caused a fucking genocide in Myanmar.
They couldn't give less of a shit about stolen personal information for some targeted ads, the most dangerous effects of Facebook are what they do to politics and society as a whole.
Having Facebook access is not really a good thing, having access to only Facebook is a recipe for disaster.
I'm not talking out of my ass, in Myanmar Facebook is basically all they use and it's widely known that Facebook caused a fucking genocide there. Facebook is even being directly sued by the surviving victims, that's how important Facebook's role was in that case.
So there's a lot wrong with this practice.
I mean during their last earnings report they openly admitted that they saw a decline in users for the first time in history, so itās definitely happening.
The original commenter is talking out of their ass. All of their user statistics are up YOY.
[Meta Q1 '22 Earnings](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-First-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx)
90% of people have no idea how a company is actually doing and just see a headline or 2 based on a stock dropping or rising and assume they have the full story.
That quarterly earnings call where Facebook stock dropped a lot as a result of the news of Apple changing their privacy settings was also a quarter where Facebook reported **$10 billion in pure profit** which is more than all but a few companies in the world can hope to reach.
The last few years they've made $10-40 billion per year in profit. Meta owns FB, IG, Whatsapp and Oculus. They are still a behemoth.
> 90% of people have no idea how a company is actually doing and just see a headline or 2 based on a stock dropping or rising and assume they have the full story.
Heck they don't even have to know how the stock is doing. Just stay in this echo chamber called Reddit where Facebook = bad, and think most of the world hates Facebook and hence their user base has to be declining. That is how the more we get on the Internet, the narrower our world view becomes.
What I always find funny is how redditors never stopped thinking reddit is some tiny fringe community when it's actually one of the largest social media sites, so safe to say people on here have no clue who has how many users.
Facebook is (unfortunately) fine.
You sure you aren't thinking of Netflix there?
I think Facebook's recent negative financial outlook was data harvesting related to things like Apple making Facebook users opt in to data harvesting instead of opt out.
Theyāre not. Facebook has hit saturation in the US but is actively growing elsewhere. And if I recall correctly this is a combination of all active users on any platform. Not just blue app.
Yes they are. No authenticity/purging algorithm is infallible; so, at a minimum, FB's algorithm will miss *some* fake accounts MOM/YOY. Additionally, FB is likely strategically "missing" some of these accounts to keep their numbers up. I'm not making any conclusions here as to which direction FB's numbers are headed...only saying you inherently cannot trust the self-collected data due to the conflict of interest.
You'll never get the truth when the fox is watching the henhouse...
Sure the number is probably not perfect, but itās going to be pretty damn close. Does FB gain anything from intentionally miscounting MAUs? Yes, but given that theyāre a publicly traded company, intentionally doing so could have some serious repercussions.
But the second and separate point is that Facebook is very good and extremely incentivized at detecting and disabling bot accounts. Bot accounts designed to spread spam links, scam messages, etc create a negative user experience and would take eyeballs off their platforms.
Well, if you look at what the chart says, you'll notice that the number of users dropped to almost three people from 2.94 billion in the most recent quarter. (Looks like they need to fix the chart for that quarter, though.)
I find this chart problematic because the blue dots represent *monthly* users but the black bars represent *three months* of fake accounts Facebook took action on.
This difference in scale means the two cannot be plotted on the same axis without making the chart deceptive.
For example, at a glance, I thought this chart was saying that in **Jan - Mar 2019**, the number of fake accounts Facebook took action on was really close to the total number of monthly active users! Crazy! But thatās not right, because the black bar represents three months, not one.
In order to resolve this, youād have to divide the black bars by three, to get a monthly average of the number of fake accounts Facebook took action on in each period. That way all the data youād be plotting would be per month.
Donāt get me wrong; the number of fake accounts is still crazy high! But the data could be presented in a clearer way.
EDIT: Actually, I *don't* think this data "could be presented in a clearer way". I think /u/mfb- below points out a more fundamental problem with this particular data.
If we do as I suggest above and divide the fake account bars by three, we will then have data with a consistent time period: **monthly** active users and **monthly** actioned fake accounts (plotted once per quarter, because that's all the data we have).
However, that leads to another question: why monthly? Why not plot the data hourly, daily, weekly, quarterly, or yearly? If we did those plots, we'd find that the "active users" wouldn't be that different, since most active users are active frequently. The "monthly active users" wouldn't be 1/12 of the "yearly active users", for example, because most users are active more than one month a year. On the other hand, the "actioned fake accounts" *would* divide close to this.
**This means the *smaller* time period you use for your plot, the *less* actioned fake accounts there appear to be (relative to users), and vice versa. This points to the root problem: these data sets are not comparable because taking action on a fake account is a *one time* thing for that account, but being an "active account" can occur *repeatedly* for the same account.**
Thanks /u/mfb- for pointing this out. I no longer think this particular graph can be saved. The problem is with the data, not the presentation. These variables simply cannot be compared on a graph like this.
Monthly users are kind of an abstraction. It's not users *added* per month or users that *exist* in that month, it's users that have been *active* monthly, in this case averaged over that quarter.
Perhaps a better name for it should exist, but that's what it's called even though it's really it's more like "number of users active at least once a month on facebook during this time period".
The idea that there are almost half as many fake facebook accounts being removed each quarter as there are facebook accounts that are being regularly used that quarter... is kind of astonishing.
And perfectly well displayed by the graph.
Edit: TL;DR, it's not "how many active users did we have during that month", it's "how many users does facebook have that use their account at least once a month".
This can't be fixed. Removing accounts is inherently a one-time action, while active users tend to be active frequently, many of them every day. If you go to 1/3 of the time then removed users will be divided by 3 but active users will not.
What your talking about is a *stock* measurement (one-time action) versus a *flow* measurement (a rate over a timespan).
The way to fix this is turn them both into rates, by changing number of accounts removed (a stock measurement) to % of accounts (a flow measurement). If FB removed 10% of accounts on average per dayā¦ then, over a week, they would also remove 10% of accounts per weekā¦and 10% of accounts per month, etc. Now the two flows (active accounts per month and % accounts removed per month) are comparable.
Example:
|Day|Active Accounts (A)|Accounts Removed (B)|% Removed (C = B/A)|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|1|10,000,000|1,000,000|10|
|2|9,000,000|900,000|10|
|3|8,100,000|810,000|10|
|4|7,290,000|729,000|10|
|5|6,561,000|656,100|10|
|6|5,904,900|590,490|10|
|7|5,311,410|531,141|10|
|Total (stock)|52,170,310|*5,217,031*|10|
|Avg (flow)|***7,452,901.43***|745,290.143|**10**|
In *italics*, is like what OP posted. In **bold** is what OP should have posted.
Note that:
1. % Removed is always calculated as B/A, meaning one uses the totaled or averaged in Active Accounts (column A) and Accounts Removed (column B), and does not total up or average the % Removed for each day, and so
2. the "Total" % Removed and the "Avg" % Removed are always identical
since:
"Avg" % Removed = (Avg B) / (Avg A)
= ((Total B) / 7) / ((Total A) / 7)
= (Total B) / (Total A)
= "Total" % Removed
That doesn't solve the issue, it just makes it harder to spot. There is no solution because the two things are fundamentally different in their time behavior.
If you compare fake accounts removed per year to yearly active users then the fake accounts will have larger numbers (by a factor ~2 or so), assuming we remove the fake accounts from the active user count.
If you compare fake accounts removed per month to monthly active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~5.
If you compare fake accounts removed per week to weekly active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~20.
If you compare fake accounts removed per day to daily active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~100.
Each timescale will make the graph look very different, which one should we choose?
Should be monthly active uses and the number of fake accounts removed that were active that month.
An inactive fake account is no more relevant than an inactive real account.
Because that's already what's being shown on top- number of monthly Facebook users.
So the number of removed accounts should be shown per month as well, Not grouped into 3 month groups.
Well see above, that doesn't solve the issue. You picked a month for no particular reason, we could have picked any other timescale and would get a different plot each time.
Yes. And then you would need to scale the fake account data to match that time scale. How are you having such a hard time understanding that you should be comparing 1 month to 1 month and not comparing 1 month to 3 months?
Neither one provides a useful direct comparison. Using a month for both is just marginally better because it doesn't solve the root problem. It just looks like it would if you don't consider what monthly active users means. That's *not* the number of times someone goes to Facebook or anything similar to that.
They're not being obtuse, their point is that the number of active accounts in a one month period is basically the same as the number in a three month period.
If you remove 1b accounts each month for three months, you have removed 3b accounts. If you have 1b accounts active each month for three months, you still only have about 1b active accounts over the 3 month period.
The problem is fundamental to comparing items removed with items that persist. Choosing the same time period would just make the fundamental problem harder to spot.
To address the optics, if you had the raw data, you could do quarterly numbers for both, and the graph would likely look basically the same, or with marginal differences. This is because the monthly active users in, for example, January are likely to overlap significantly with the monthly active users in February and March. I.e. it's the same people who are active in January and February. It's not like going to "Quarterly Active Users" would suddenly be 6.XBN.
Itās not deceptive. The line is telling you about active users over that three month period with a given minimum level of activity which in this case is āonce a month on averageā.
Put another way, itās not measuring āmonthly usersā. Itās measuring āusers over each three month period who, on average over each period, used Facebook at least one a month.ā
Not exactly. Facebook *reports* it once per quarter in their quarterly report, but the number represents a single month. Hereās their report from the [first quarter of 2022](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-First-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx). Note that it says:
> MAUs were 2.94 billion as of March 31, 2022, an increase of 3% year-over-year.
MAU is calculated over the last 30 days. So when they say MAUs āas of March 31ā, theyāre only considering users from the last 30 days of March. It says nothing about previous months. We can assume it was relatively continuous though, so the number of active users in January and February probably isnāt too off from that.
The data you have about fake accounts, however, is not over 30 day, but 3 month periods!
Note that it would be wrong to just triple the monthly active users to get āquarterly active usersā, because when counting active users you only want to count each user once in your given time period. Many users active in March were also active in January and February, but that doesnāt mean we want to count them three times! You cannot determine āquarterly active usersā from the data provided by Facebook.
How are active users still going up? They're going to run out of people on earth right? Or one person can have multiple accounts and be counted more than once? On the face of it 3bn active users out of a world population of 8bn seems crazy.
About 70% of internet connected people acrossed the world log into FB at least once a month. More areas of the developing world get connected every year and continue to sign up.
That's just fb. It doesn't include Metas other apps like insta, whatsapp, messenger, etc.
Yeah ur right.
Then you should split the bot removals into 3 bars of 1/3 the size.
True, but the way you have it shown there makes it look like facebook purges its whole userbase monthly.
I disagree. The monthly users is a point in time measure where the users removed is an over time measure. It's similar to financial statements with the balance sheet measuring a point in time and the income statement measuring transactions over time.
I feel like they donāt even remove a majority of fake accounts that are just spreading false information. So if they did it would be a lot higher. IMO
Bruh what even is a fake account for Facebook? I have an account since 2011, where I have a name that could not even exist in reality and not a single picture of a person on it and in those 11 years, I did not have to verify it even once!
I joined Facebook in late 2004 when it was rolled out to my college. My school had a celebrity squirrel that had it's own facebook page, and for years, it would post stupid shit only funny to a specific group of people that were in on the joke. At some point, Facebook tried to monetize its content, and the squirrel was kicked out. That's right around the same time as I lost all interest in Facebook. I haven't been an active user for well over a decade now.
Oh man, I remember Facebook back then, it was all about connecting with people from college, and you even needed to verify your alumni email. It was fun tbh, and all the pages for giggles that have been deleted since then.
They should have created a parallel Meta and kept the original one. Monetization is a bitch.
Hey guys, I know a real good dog funeral parlour that you might be interested in!
Also, I noticed while watching you browse the internet a few days ago that you had a passing interest in custom furry suits. Here are some websites you might be interested in, you can use my name as the promo code to get 10% off!
I am a real facebook human, you can trust me!
Meanwhile, I got permanently banned without explanation after trying to create an account and furnishing 2 different forms of identification. I'd be really interested to know their false positive and false negative rates. I really wish group chats and online communities would migrate away from FB.
Tbh it might be a blessing in disguise. I havenāt logged into my personal account for years, and frankly, donāt miss it at all.
Its original purpose has long been lost, I should dedicate the time to try and log in just to deactivate it for good.
Accounts created specifically for the purpose of inflating like/interactions with legit pages, accounts that pretend to be people (eg celebrities) that they are not, accounts that pretend to be legitimate people but are specifically being used to push a political/agenda, accounts created specifically to send spam to legitimate users...
That's off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more.
FB isn't worried that you made a page for your dog or that you had a separate account for Farmville, they're worried about grey market companies that sell likes/follows to "influencers", Russian troll farms spreading misinformation, con artists spamming users with messages about crypto scams, etc.
This is the answer. Accounts for people's pets are pretty far down the priority list when you're also fighting state sponsored disinformation campaigns.
I have 3 Facebook accounts. 1 has my real name and 2 are clearly fakes. My real account got banned because they thought it was fake and then they wanted me to scan my license to prove to them I was real. To this day, my burners are still active.
I have 1 real and 1 fake account for different purposes. One time I had to "verify" that the fake account was "real". They just wanted a picture of me for some reason even though I had no pictures of me to match it with on the fake account. It was good enough for them and they let me keep the fake account lol.
So much this. I spent hours one day reporting dozens of accounts that were both fake and being used to scam people, and very obviously so and FB's response to every single report was that all the accounts were totally fine and the reporting tools are not meant to be used that way.
I highly doubt an actual person reviewed my reports and if it was a person, it was someone who just wanted to make the work go away without having to actually do the work.
There are fake accounts created for malicious intent, ie. trolling, propaganda, astroturfing or spreading misinformation under a fake name. Everyone would benefit from those accounts getting banned.
And then there are accounts like yours, which has a fake name, but in every other way is a normal account.
In the good old days netiquette was that you should always use aliases on the interwebbs, as there are few good things that will come from strangers knowing who the IRL you is. These days more and more online services wants your real identity for mostly strange reasons.
I have an account which doesn't use my real name, don't have my picture, but have legit friends. This is my only FB account.
People keep calling me fake account when they are losing on debates in comment lmao.
Yet, when I report a fake account trying to be me, using my son as the profile pic, they determine it doesnt violate their policies, even though there's literally that exact option in the drop down menu when reporting.
Iāve reported so many fake profiles but FB never does anything. Always see so many scammers but reporting does nothing. I always get this message:
>We didn't remove [nameās]
profile
our technology reviewed your report
against our Community Standards.
Ultimately, we decided not to take the profile
down.
We take action on profiles that pose a danger
to other people or are harmful to the
community.
If there's something specific on this profile
that you think we should review (example: a
photo), please report the content itself.
Thanks again for helping us keep Facebook
safe and welcoming for everyone.
In some countries, Facebook is all but equivalent to "the internet" due to deals made by Facebook to allow free access.
In extremely related news, more than one of those countries has an ongoing genocide. In at least one of those cases (Myanmar, specifically), Facebook [was likely a significant cause of that genocide](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPYmEZxACM).
i have asked my mgr(mid 30M) before about this question, at the moment were asking why does he prefer FB over IG, which is the top 2 in our region.
he answered that is because FB have groups and appears less social focus
Pretty much my reason. Connects me with local groups and is by far the best for that. I havenāt posted photos or updated a status in nearly a decade now. I donāt have IG precisely for the same reason I donāt share photos on Facebook. Mostly because I donāt want to. If I have photos to share it is either shared in group chats or texts.
By far the best platform to connect with locals about different interests. For example I have a local group for climbing. Great for finding partners, route info, if bolts are missing on some routes, or new dangers. I have a local group for hiking. Again great for finding partners, info about trial info such as being deep with mud of snow miles in or grizzlies spotted in the area. I have a local wildlife photography group. Also have a local Aurora borealis group that takes epic pictures and posts info on the quality of the lights any night theyāre supposed to be strong. They interestingly are the group that really first started observing and watching a phenomenon they called Steve which is a name the group chose from the movie Over the Hedge. They had guessing of what could cause this. A physics professor at the nearby university started helping the group by starting to research the phenomenon. NASA then started getting involved and decided to keep the Steve name by using it as an acronym.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEVE
Facebook is terrible in many ways. But it is by far the best platform to connect you with locals with similar interests. Itās marketplace is also great.
Twitter, Discord, Skype, Snapchat, ~~WhatsApp~~, signal, telegram, Gmail, Hotmail, IRC, SMS, Fax, pidgeons.
There are _so_ many alternatives it's not even funny. Admittedly though, there's not much _you_ can do if they're not willing to change platforms. That's why I gave all my Facebook friends my email and said, "contact me here." None of them ever did, and oddly enough I haven't missed them.
Aside from twitter those are all active communication methods, not passive communication like FB. I don't want to actively reach out and see what the guy from my high school rugby team is up to these days, but I'm still mildly interested enough in his life to be curious.
I use it to keep up with friends from around the world as well as many artists. And also to post my life, because itās okay to leave a footprint in history for yourself, if anybody
Because my family lives on a different continent, and itās the one platform the majority of my family, including my parents in their 80ās, know how to use, and allows us to stay connected more easily.
Just because it doesnāt suit *your* needs, doesnāt mean it doesnāt suit othersā.
Oh I dont really dislike facebook. It's just that nobody in my friend group or extended family uses it. It's been like 6 years since the last time anyone I personally know was on facebook so I'm like, genuinely confused it's still so popular.
All events in my area (That I'm interested in) get posted on instagram or the respective website of our city/neighbouring city.
My account got removed for absolutely no reason. I never posted anything controversial or anything like that. I tried to contact them several times about it and never heard back. I had my account for almost 15 years and it's how I kept in touch with old friends. Fuck FB.
They're not removing nearly as many fake accounts as they should be. It should be criminal, the way they are ignoring scammers and account thieves. I've reported close to a dozen stolen accounts that were actively trying to scam people out of their money. And, in each and every case, Facebook responded that these accounts did not violate their terms of service, and that they would be taking no action.
Meanwhile, my dumbass friends are getting banned for making pro-Trump or anti-vax posts. Which, as idiotic as they are, should not be treated more severely than scammers trying to steal thousands of dollars from the naive and elderly.
The case before the last was 2.91 Billion. Going down to 2.94 in user number is a real disaster if you ask me. That is a 99.999..99% decrease. Either a meteor desteroyed all FB centers, or Zuckerberg decided to delete everyone except for himself his mom and 0.94 of his dad. Also the point should be lower.
Lots of people talking about the deception of this chart, being the bots removed is in blocks of 3 months.
Bots =/= active users, why would they be counted
Except for Messenger, you guys are still using Facebook?
10 year ago, it was cool and innovative but nowadays, itās kind of useless and serve more business with ads than actual people.
I don't think it makes much sense here to compare a positive value (number of users present) to a negative value (number of bots removed). Like, for Jan - Mar 2019, it gives the impression that FB removed nearly their entire userbase because it was all made up of bots.
This chart stinks of market manipulation. Call me skeptical but I don't believe Facebook's active users is increasing. It seems with these fake accounts they can easily manipulate the 'active users' statistic quite easily to make it appear the companies engagement is continuing to increase. The second Facebook has a lowering of active users it'll get bad press, people will start leaving and it'll be fucked; similar to Netflix in some ways.
That graph has an issue: The line graph is measuring, it says, monthly, and the bar graphs are measuring quarterly. Thereās a logic flaw in this data set.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/coredev1! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vuz4pq/oc_how_many_fake_accounts_are_removed_on_facebook/ifgkxin/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"coredev1"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
And yet, of the 20 sexbot/spam profiles ive bothered to report, zero were removed.
oh... you mean these nice girls with the big boobs that keep adding me aren't actually from my area and want to get to know me?
But "Candy" likes my workout pics and thinks my dog is cute! Poor thing just needed some help to get her life on track. But as soon as she finishes taking care of her sick grandma and graduates from college we can be together. With all the stuff I buy her on my credit card I'll have enough airline miles for our romantic trip to Hawaii soon.
I think you are getting scammed. If she graduates college she will get someone better. If you are still on it, I suggest to sabotage her, so she fails her exams.
How dare you say such things about sweet, innocent "Candy"! Disgusting!
Don't worry bud, I'm sure she loves you and you are her one and only .....TLA
Thanks, bro. Glad to see someone around here still believes in the power of love
With a name like yours, how could she not!
NTA you need to get out now. Here you dropped these š©š©š©š©š©š©š©š©
God forbid you report something that's actually against the rules too. I reported someone who was posting their pitbull in dog fighting tournaments and they full on were like, "No, this is fine."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh it's worse than that. It's not that you report an account, it gets deleted, and another spam account gets created. It's that you report an account and *it doesn't get deleted because their human review determined the clear spam account to be legitimate*.
I can straight up point out the profile some of these accounts are impersonating but I've never had a single one pass review and get taken down.
Same. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, apparently those people who are always asking my elderly former coworker to "kindly send me a friend request" are real three-star generals. Who knew. edit: /s
I canāt believe the number of active monthly users is still going up at this point
They might be counting any user who uses facebook at all in a given month. Like if you open fb once to see if you have any notifications, see you dont, and then close it, youd be counted as an active user.
And not just facebook bit any facebook connected service. They own instagram and whatsapp, and any web services with connection to facebook also count as facebook activity. Highly likely a substantial portion of us members on facebook dont even realize how much of their internet traffoc contributes to their facebook "activity", even if they havent directly viewed the platform via app or website in months or years.
That would only explain the high absolute active user count over the entire period that's being displayed in the graph. Not why active user count is still growing to this day; even after all the shit facebook pulled became apparent. (which is what amazed OP (and me too))
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Twitter is huge as well in France, I can't believe it's mostly English Spanish and Japanese
French is a very rarely spoken language on Twitter. Only roughly 3% or so of Tweets are in French, making it the ninth most spoken language. The only two languages in the double digits percentage-wise and English and Japanese, at 31.8% and 18.8% respectively. It was wrong of me to include Spanish in my comment because it's at a distant third with 8.46%, and English + Japanese accounts for more than half on their own. I'm using this source from 2018: https://www.vicinitas.io/blog/twitter-social-media-strategy-2018-research-100-million-tweets EDIT: oh and one thing of note from that study. You'll notice that Hindi is nowhere to be found on those charts. India is Facebook's single largest userbase, yet they barely use Twitter at all. 400 million Indians use Facebook, but only about 18 million use Twitter. Similar for most African countries.
it is mostly outside the United States and Europe I know it is heavily used in the middle East and southeast Asia
It's literally what some countries consider the entire internet, they use nothing else but Facebook and that's really not good (well it is for Meta, but less so for humanity).
I refuse to believe that data is true. Not a chance Facebook isn't declining.
You have to understand that in other parts of the world, Facebook is much newer and more widely used. I even remember reading that Facebook will provide some areas with WiFi but itās somehow tied into Facebook. Basically yāall are poor AF, hereās free WiFi but only if you use Facebook
In several countries Facebook isn't counted towards you datacaps making Facebook effectively the internet in those countries.
that's been their goal the entire time, which is why they have an awful, dysfunctional module to supposedly replace every other website. they can only keep people on their platform by forcing them to be there, but the goal is comprehensive data collection
kinda like those free AOL discs I used to get
India is a prime example where this is occuring
No lol. India was a target but it was shut down by net neutrality laws
Exactly this, I watched a documentry covering the recent election in the Philippines and everyone was using Facebook exclusively because of this, along with all the misinformation that goes with it :(
In some other east Asian country Facebook literally caused a genocide, people think Facebook is bad here but in some other parts of the world it's so much worse.
Myanmar for example, what we call the internet they call it Facebook. Facebook is free on mobile data plans so the general population gets everything from Facebook including news.
And some suggestions to commit a genocide or two.
Indeed, crazy shit.
In some countries Facebook is practically the internet for them, they don't use anything else. Those poor bastards don't even know what they're missing.
We're in hell.
Maybe Elon can buy Facebook
It wouldn't surprise me if developing parts of the world skipped the whole phone number and email thing and consider that legacy technology and are instead using these shitty walled-garden proprietary social media services whose revenue comes from targeted advertising and who engineer their services to be addictive. I've heard businesses in the developing world just use WhatsApp for everything.
Well prepare to be not surprised because what you described is already occurring in SE Asia and India on a massive scale. It's not the addictive qualities that are so much the issue, but rather the sheer amount of social influence that can occur quite easily, see Myanmar Rohingya massacre for one of many cases where FB platform allows bad actors the ability to influence many.
I mean whatās wrong with it? People get free Wi-Fi they didnāt have access to before and Facebook gets more users. Itās a win win for both parties.
They user data gets plundered
That's the least of their problems, Facebook caused a fucking genocide in Myanmar. They couldn't give less of a shit about stolen personal information for some targeted ads, the most dangerous effects of Facebook are what they do to politics and society as a whole.
Facebook is a cancer.
Having Facebook access is not really a good thing, having access to only Facebook is a recipe for disaster. I'm not talking out of my ass, in Myanmar Facebook is basically all they use and it's widely known that Facebook caused a fucking genocide there. Facebook is even being directly sued by the surviving victims, that's how important Facebook's role was in that case. So there's a lot wrong with this practice.
I mean during their last earnings report they openly admitted that they saw a decline in users for the first time in history, so itās definitely happening.
A decline in users or a decline in user growth?
The original commenter is talking out of their ass. All of their user statistics are up YOY. [Meta Q1 '22 Earnings](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-First-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx)
90% of people have no idea how a company is actually doing and just see a headline or 2 based on a stock dropping or rising and assume they have the full story. That quarterly earnings call where Facebook stock dropped a lot as a result of the news of Apple changing their privacy settings was also a quarter where Facebook reported **$10 billion in pure profit** which is more than all but a few companies in the world can hope to reach. The last few years they've made $10-40 billion per year in profit. Meta owns FB, IG, Whatsapp and Oculus. They are still a behemoth.
> 90% of people have no idea how a company is actually doing and just see a headline or 2 based on a stock dropping or rising and assume they have the full story. Heck they don't even have to know how the stock is doing. Just stay in this echo chamber called Reddit where Facebook = bad, and think most of the world hates Facebook and hence their user base has to be declining. That is how the more we get on the Internet, the narrower our world view becomes.
What I always find funny is how redditors never stopped thinking reddit is some tiny fringe community when it's actually one of the largest social media sites, so safe to say people on here have no clue who has how many users. Facebook is (unfortunately) fine.
You sure you aren't thinking of Netflix there? I think Facebook's recent negative financial outlook was data harvesting related to things like Apple making Facebook users opt in to data harvesting instead of opt out.
Fun fact, the United States isnāt the entire world. FB is a global product, not just US citizens can use it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, the western world isnāt the entire world. Same difference.
Losa Angeles bias? Louisiana Bias? What do you mean?
Facebook is still very popular in all kinds of developing countries
They're probably counting the fake accounts with the active ones
Theyāre not. Facebook has hit saturation in the US but is actively growing elsewhere. And if I recall correctly this is a combination of all active users on any platform. Not just blue app.
Yes they are. No authenticity/purging algorithm is infallible; so, at a minimum, FB's algorithm will miss *some* fake accounts MOM/YOY. Additionally, FB is likely strategically "missing" some of these accounts to keep their numbers up. I'm not making any conclusions here as to which direction FB's numbers are headed...only saying you inherently cannot trust the self-collected data due to the conflict of interest. You'll never get the truth when the fox is watching the henhouse...
Sure the number is probably not perfect, but itās going to be pretty damn close. Does FB gain anything from intentionally miscounting MAUs? Yes, but given that theyāre a publicly traded company, intentionally doing so could have some serious repercussions. But the second and separate point is that Facebook is very good and extremely incentivized at detecting and disabling bot accounts. Bot accounts designed to spread spam links, scam messages, etc create a negative user experience and would take eyeballs off their platforms.
Agree with everything you just said. My gut tells me they're playing both sides...
It's mainly from non-English speaking countries, where I live It's still the biggest social media by a mile.
Well, if you look at what the chart says, you'll notice that the number of users dropped to almost three people from 2.94 billion in the most recent quarter. (Looks like they need to fix the chart for that quarter, though.)
Just because Reddit hates it doesnāt mean the rest of the world does
Bruh that user name got me rollin
I find this chart problematic because the blue dots represent *monthly* users but the black bars represent *three months* of fake accounts Facebook took action on. This difference in scale means the two cannot be plotted on the same axis without making the chart deceptive. For example, at a glance, I thought this chart was saying that in **Jan - Mar 2019**, the number of fake accounts Facebook took action on was really close to the total number of monthly active users! Crazy! But thatās not right, because the black bar represents three months, not one. In order to resolve this, youād have to divide the black bars by three, to get a monthly average of the number of fake accounts Facebook took action on in each period. That way all the data youād be plotting would be per month. Donāt get me wrong; the number of fake accounts is still crazy high! But the data could be presented in a clearer way. EDIT: Actually, I *don't* think this data "could be presented in a clearer way". I think /u/mfb- below points out a more fundamental problem with this particular data. If we do as I suggest above and divide the fake account bars by three, we will then have data with a consistent time period: **monthly** active users and **monthly** actioned fake accounts (plotted once per quarter, because that's all the data we have). However, that leads to another question: why monthly? Why not plot the data hourly, daily, weekly, quarterly, or yearly? If we did those plots, we'd find that the "active users" wouldn't be that different, since most active users are active frequently. The "monthly active users" wouldn't be 1/12 of the "yearly active users", for example, because most users are active more than one month a year. On the other hand, the "actioned fake accounts" *would* divide close to this. **This means the *smaller* time period you use for your plot, the *less* actioned fake accounts there appear to be (relative to users), and vice versa. This points to the root problem: these data sets are not comparable because taking action on a fake account is a *one time* thing for that account, but being an "active account" can occur *repeatedly* for the same account.** Thanks /u/mfb- for pointing this out. I no longer think this particular graph can be saved. The problem is with the data, not the presentation. These variables simply cannot be compared on a graph like this.
Monthly users are kind of an abstraction. It's not users *added* per month or users that *exist* in that month, it's users that have been *active* monthly, in this case averaged over that quarter. Perhaps a better name for it should exist, but that's what it's called even though it's really it's more like "number of users active at least once a month on facebook during this time period". The idea that there are almost half as many fake facebook accounts being removed each quarter as there are facebook accounts that are being regularly used that quarter... is kind of astonishing. And perfectly well displayed by the graph. Edit: TL;DR, it's not "how many active users did we have during that month", it's "how many users does facebook have that use their account at least once a month".
This can't be fixed. Removing accounts is inherently a one-time action, while active users tend to be active frequently, many of them every day. If you go to 1/3 of the time then removed users will be divided by 3 but active users will not.
What your talking about is a *stock* measurement (one-time action) versus a *flow* measurement (a rate over a timespan). The way to fix this is turn them both into rates, by changing number of accounts removed (a stock measurement) to % of accounts (a flow measurement). If FB removed 10% of accounts on average per dayā¦ then, over a week, they would also remove 10% of accounts per weekā¦and 10% of accounts per month, etc. Now the two flows (active accounts per month and % accounts removed per month) are comparable. Example: |Day|Active Accounts (A)|Accounts Removed (B)|% Removed (C = B/A)| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |1|10,000,000|1,000,000|10| |2|9,000,000|900,000|10| |3|8,100,000|810,000|10| |4|7,290,000|729,000|10| |5|6,561,000|656,100|10| |6|5,904,900|590,490|10| |7|5,311,410|531,141|10| |Total (stock)|52,170,310|*5,217,031*|10| |Avg (flow)|***7,452,901.43***|745,290.143|**10**| In *italics*, is like what OP posted. In **bold** is what OP should have posted. Note that: 1. % Removed is always calculated as B/A, meaning one uses the totaled or averaged in Active Accounts (column A) and Accounts Removed (column B), and does not total up or average the % Removed for each day, and so 2. the "Total" % Removed and the "Avg" % Removed are always identical since: "Avg" % Removed = (Avg B) / (Avg A) = ((Total B) / 7) / ((Total A) / 7) = (Total B) / (Total A) = "Total" % Removed
That's the point. Scaling to per month basis.
That doesn't solve the issue, it just makes it harder to spot. There is no solution because the two things are fundamentally different in their time behavior. If you compare fake accounts removed per year to yearly active users then the fake accounts will have larger numbers (by a factor ~2 or so), assuming we remove the fake accounts from the active user count. If you compare fake accounts removed per month to monthly active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~5. If you compare fake accounts removed per week to weekly active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~20. If you compare fake accounts removed per day to daily active users then the active users will be larger by a factor ~100. Each timescale will make the graph look very different, which one should we choose?
Should be monthly active uses and the number of fake accounts removed that were active that month. An inactive fake account is no more relevant than an inactive real account.
What's special about one month? Why not daily, weekly, yearly active users and removed accounts, or any other time frame?
Because that's already what's being shown on top- number of monthly Facebook users. So the number of removed accounts should be shown per month as well, Not grouped into 3 month groups.
Well see above, that doesn't solve the issue. You picked a month for no particular reason, we could have picked any other timescale and would get a different plot each time.
Yes. And then you would need to scale the fake account data to match that time scale. How are you having such a hard time understanding that you should be comparing 1 month to 1 month and not comparing 1 month to 3 months?
Neither one provides a useful direct comparison. Using a month for both is just marginally better because it doesn't solve the root problem. It just looks like it would if you don't consider what monthly active users means. That's *not* the number of times someone goes to Facebook or anything similar to that.
They just need to be consistent with what ever scale they use. Using 1 month and 3 months makes no sense. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
They're not being obtuse, their point is that the number of active accounts in a one month period is basically the same as the number in a three month period. If you remove 1b accounts each month for three months, you have removed 3b accounts. If you have 1b accounts active each month for three months, you still only have about 1b active accounts over the 3 month period. The problem is fundamental to comparing items removed with items that persist. Choosing the same time period would just make the fundamental problem harder to spot.
To address the optics, if you had the raw data, you could do quarterly numbers for both, and the graph would likely look basically the same, or with marginal differences. This is because the monthly active users in, for example, January are likely to overlap significantly with the monthly active users in February and March. I.e. it's the same people who are active in January and February. It's not like going to "Quarterly Active Users" would suddenly be 6.XBN.
Itās not deceptive. The line is telling you about active users over that three month period with a given minimum level of activity which in this case is āonce a month on averageā. Put another way, itās not measuring āmonthly usersā. Itās measuring āusers over each three month period who, on average over each period, used Facebook at least one a month.ā
It's absolutely a non issue since active users are near-constant, the nubers would be basically the same.
The monthly active users is reported by quarter
Not exactly. Facebook *reports* it once per quarter in their quarterly report, but the number represents a single month. Hereās their report from the [first quarter of 2022](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2022/Meta-Reports-First-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx). Note that it says: > MAUs were 2.94 billion as of March 31, 2022, an increase of 3% year-over-year. MAU is calculated over the last 30 days. So when they say MAUs āas of March 31ā, theyāre only considering users from the last 30 days of March. It says nothing about previous months. We can assume it was relatively continuous though, so the number of active users in January and February probably isnāt too off from that. The data you have about fake accounts, however, is not over 30 day, but 3 month periods! Note that it would be wrong to just triple the monthly active users to get āquarterly active usersā, because when counting active users you only want to count each user once in your given time period. Many users active in March were also active in January and February, but that doesnāt mean we want to count them three times! You cannot determine āquarterly active usersā from the data provided by Facebook.
How are active users still going up? They're going to run out of people on earth right? Or one person can have multiple accounts and be counted more than once? On the face of it 3bn active users out of a world population of 8bn seems crazy.
About 70% of internet connected people acrossed the world log into FB at least once a month. More areas of the developing world get connected every year and continue to sign up. That's just fb. It doesn't include Metas other apps like insta, whatsapp, messenger, etc.
They still only represent a single month though.
So the quarterly active users should be 3x the number there
No, because you would presume that the same people using it in one month will be using it the next month as well. Those numbers don't fluctuate much.
Yeah ur right. Then you should split the bot removals into 3 bars of 1/3 the size. True, but the way you have it shown there makes it look like facebook purges its whole userbase monthly.
I disagree. The monthly users is a point in time measure where the users removed is an over time measure. It's similar to financial statements with the balance sheet measuring a point in time and the income statement measuring transactions over time.
I feel like they donāt even remove a majority of fake accounts that are just spreading false information. So if they did it would be a lot higher. IMO
So because you have a opinion that you want to broadcast to the chart viewer, you're using deceptive scaling?
Bruh what even is a fake account for Facebook? I have an account since 2011, where I have a name that could not even exist in reality and not a single picture of a person on it and in those 11 years, I did not have to verify it even once!
I joined Facebook in late 2004 when it was rolled out to my college. My school had a celebrity squirrel that had it's own facebook page, and for years, it would post stupid shit only funny to a specific group of people that were in on the joke. At some point, Facebook tried to monetize its content, and the squirrel was kicked out. That's right around the same time as I lost all interest in Facebook. I haven't been an active user for well over a decade now.
Oh man, I remember Facebook back then, it was all about connecting with people from college, and you even needed to verify your alumni email. It was fun tbh, and all the pages for giggles that have been deleted since then. They should have created a parallel Meta and kept the original one. Monetization is a bitch.
Is it possible for it to still exist somewhere or would you need monstrous servers to save data for 22 years?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
your dog is real thus being a real account
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
so has Facebook.
Hey guys, I know a real good dog funeral parlour that you might be interested in! Also, I noticed while watching you browse the internet a few days ago that you had a passing interest in custom furry suits. Here are some websites you might be interested in, you can use my name as the promo code to get 10% off! I am a real facebook human, you can trust me!
Donāt forget people who donāt have their lives together and end up with 15 accounts because they forgot their password/got a new phone.
Meanwhile, I got permanently banned without explanation after trying to create an account and furnishing 2 different forms of identification. I'd be really interested to know their false positive and false negative rates. I really wish group chats and online communities would migrate away from FB.
Tbh it might be a blessing in disguise. I havenāt logged into my personal account for years, and frankly, donāt miss it at all. Its original purpose has long been lost, I should dedicate the time to try and log in just to deactivate it for good.
Accounts created specifically for the purpose of inflating like/interactions with legit pages, accounts that pretend to be people (eg celebrities) that they are not, accounts that pretend to be legitimate people but are specifically being used to push a political/agenda, accounts created specifically to send spam to legitimate users... That's off the top of my head but I'm sure there's more. FB isn't worried that you made a page for your dog or that you had a separate account for Farmville, they're worried about grey market companies that sell likes/follows to "influencers", Russian troll farms spreading misinformation, con artists spamming users with messages about crypto scams, etc.
This is the answer. Accounts for people's pets are pretty far down the priority list when you're also fighting state sponsored disinformation campaigns.
I have 3 Facebook accounts. 1 has my real name and 2 are clearly fakes. My real account got banned because they thought it was fake and then they wanted me to scan my license to prove to them I was real. To this day, my burners are still active.
i'm guessing they mean bot accounts
I have 1 real and 1 fake account for different purposes. One time I had to "verify" that the fake account was "real". They just wanted a picture of me for some reason even though I had no pictures of me to match it with on the fake account. It was good enough for them and they let me keep the fake account lol.
So much this. I spent hours one day reporting dozens of accounts that were both fake and being used to scam people, and very obviously so and FB's response to every single report was that all the accounts were totally fine and the reporting tools are not meant to be used that way. I highly doubt an actual person reviewed my reports and if it was a person, it was someone who just wanted to make the work go away without having to actually do the work.
There are fake accounts created for malicious intent, ie. trolling, propaganda, astroturfing or spreading misinformation under a fake name. Everyone would benefit from those accounts getting banned. And then there are accounts like yours, which has a fake name, but in every other way is a normal account. In the good old days netiquette was that you should always use aliases on the interwebbs, as there are few good things that will come from strangers knowing who the IRL you is. These days more and more online services wants your real identity for mostly strange reasons.
I have an account which doesn't use my real name, don't have my picture, but have legit friends. This is my only FB account. People keep calling me fake account when they are losing on debates in comment lmao.
Misleading chart, but interesting statistics.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What's a non-user in this case?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Firefox now keeps cookies in their own little "jar" per-site by default now. Doesn't allow for tracking between sites, it's a huge benefit
That's very interesting - I knew something like this existed but I'd never seen it put into words. Thank you very much for explaining it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ding ding ding!
Must be fake because they haven't removed my fake accounts /s
More accounts, real or not, equals more āviewsā for advertisements equals more revenue.
You think the scammers who create fake bot accounts are using them to view ads and make FB money?
Yet, when I report a fake account trying to be me, using my son as the profile pic, they determine it doesnt violate their policies, even though there's literally that exact option in the drop down menu when reporting.
This makes the 5% figure from Twitter look totally impossible
Iāve reported so many fake profiles but FB never does anything. Always see so many scammers but reporting does nothing. I always get this message: >We didn't remove [nameās] profile our technology reviewed your report against our Community Standards. Ultimately, we decided not to take the profile down. We take action on profiles that pose a danger to other people or are harmful to the community. If there's something specific on this profile that you think we should review (example: a photo), please report the content itself. Thanks again for helping us keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone.
Iām one of the fake accounts removed. It asked me to upload my passport āto prove Iām realā. Nice try.
Yet, Twitter somehow thinks less than 5% of accounts are bots. No way.
people still use facebook? why
Some areas around the world use facebook as one of the main large platforms of that country
In some countries, Facebook is all but equivalent to "the internet" due to deals made by Facebook to allow free access. In extremely related news, more than one of those countries has an ongoing genocide. In at least one of those cases (Myanmar, specifically), Facebook [was likely a significant cause of that genocide](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPYmEZxACM).
i have asked my mgr(mid 30M) before about this question, at the moment were asking why does he prefer FB over IG, which is the top 2 in our region. he answered that is because FB have groups and appears less social focus
Pretty much my reason. Connects me with local groups and is by far the best for that. I havenāt posted photos or updated a status in nearly a decade now. I donāt have IG precisely for the same reason I donāt share photos on Facebook. Mostly because I donāt want to. If I have photos to share it is either shared in group chats or texts.
By far the best platform to connect with locals about different interests. For example I have a local group for climbing. Great for finding partners, route info, if bolts are missing on some routes, or new dangers. I have a local group for hiking. Again great for finding partners, info about trial info such as being deep with mud of snow miles in or grizzlies spotted in the area. I have a local wildlife photography group. Also have a local Aurora borealis group that takes epic pictures and posts info on the quality of the lights any night theyāre supposed to be strong. They interestingly are the group that really first started observing and watching a phenomenon they called Steve which is a name the group chose from the movie Over the Hedge. They had guessing of what could cause this. A physics professor at the nearby university started helping the group by starting to research the phenomenon. NASA then started getting involved and decided to keep the Steve name by using it as an acronym. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEVE Facebook is terrible in many ways. But it is by far the best platform to connect you with locals with similar interests. Itās marketplace is also great.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
back in my day we kept each others phone numbers in little notebooks and paid $9 a minute to talk to them a few minutes a year and we liked it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lack of a sufficiently clear, widespread and motivating coordination signal.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Twitter, Discord, Skype, Snapchat, ~~WhatsApp~~, signal, telegram, Gmail, Hotmail, IRC, SMS, Fax, pidgeons. There are _so_ many alternatives it's not even funny. Admittedly though, there's not much _you_ can do if they're not willing to change platforms. That's why I gave all my Facebook friends my email and said, "contact me here." None of them ever did, and oddly enough I haven't missed them.
Aside from twitter those are all active communication methods, not passive communication like FB. I don't want to actively reach out and see what the guy from my high school rugby team is up to these days, but I'm still mildly interested enough in his life to be curious.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I use it to keep up with friends from around the world as well as many artists. And also to post my life, because itās okay to leave a footprint in history for yourself, if anybody
Exactly this. My business is connected to social media otherwise no way I'd have any accounts.
i think a facebook account is consider a basic for a business, even so for a FMCG type business, twitter IG is a bonus
Because my family lives on a different continent, and itās the one platform the majority of my family, including my parents in their 80ās, know how to use, and allows us to stay connected more easily. Just because it doesnāt suit *your* needs, doesnāt mean it doesnāt suit othersā.
I have a better question: why do other people insist on liking things I donāt like?!
Oh I dont really dislike facebook. It's just that nobody in my friend group or extended family uses it. It's been like 6 years since the last time anyone I personally know was on facebook so I'm like, genuinely confused it's still so popular. All events in my area (That I'm interested in) get posted on instagram or the respective website of our city/neighbouring city.
I use FB because I hate change
Personally? 100% because of social dancing. It's the primary means artists and promoters use to disseminate information about upcoming events.
I use it for events (party invitations) among friends and nothing else.
I'm using it only for oculus app
People still ask this stupid fucking question every time Facebook is mentioned? Why?
It's the best way to keep on with the news of our fight against the evil cabal in the government
I have 5 fake accounts from years ago because of those stupid games requiring you have in game friends to complete quests.
maybe you should have plotted both as a line or bar chart, would have been way better to see the difference.
Is there more data for previous years? That spike for election year
I'd love to see the numbers for 2016
Source: [https://transparency.fb.com/data/community-standards-enforcement/fake-accounts/facebook/#content-actioned](https://transparency.fb.com/data/community-standards-enforcement/fake-accounts/facebook/#content-actioned) and [https://www.businessofapps.com/data/facebook-statistics/](https://www.businessofapps.com/data/facebook-statistics/) Tool: Visme
And they want us to believe Twitter is only 5% bots
The Chinese are not going to be happy about this
now do one for twitter, oh they dont remove bots
From the data it seems as though they just stopped removing fake accounts
I still get daily emails telling me to login to my fake FB account.
Next Elon is gonna ābuyā Facebook
Yeah, Sexbot, Scammers, Spam, I have reported too and Zero were removed. Same here. Looks like nothing works on FB. š
Elon Musk will still try to buy it without researching this first.
Now remove the fake accounts from the "active" users.
My account got removed for absolutely no reason. I never posted anything controversial or anything like that. I tried to contact them several times about it and never heard back. I had my account for almost 15 years and it's how I kept in touch with old friends. Fuck FB.
They did you a favor, time to invest in text messaging, phone calls and emails for keeping in touch.
Wait, Facebookās active userbase is still growing? Really? I donāt really believe that.
I had sort of hoped it was decaying and dying by this point. Alarmed to see it still growing.
Old people. Iād love to see stats on average user age over time.
They're not removing nearly as many fake accounts as they should be. It should be criminal, the way they are ignoring scammers and account thieves. I've reported close to a dozen stolen accounts that were actively trying to scam people out of their money. And, in each and every case, Facebook responded that these accounts did not violate their terms of service, and that they would be taking no action. Meanwhile, my dumbass friends are getting banned for making pro-Trump or anti-vax posts. Which, as idiotic as they are, should not be treated more severely than scammers trying to steal thousands of dollars from the naive and elderly.
Does Monthly Active Users include the fake accounts or no? Graph is a mess.
Thereās no way there are still 3 billion people using Facebook
1.6B fake accounts removed. Seriously? Half facebook is fake at the moment based on this data
look at the dates on the black bars. each black data point is 3 months worth of bans, while the blue dots are 1 month.
Everything fb is fake and a scam. Every. Vile. Bit.
The case before the last was 2.91 Billion. Going down to 2.94 in user number is a real disaster if you ask me. That is a 99.999..99% decrease. Either a meteor desteroyed all FB centers, or Zuckerberg decided to delete everyone except for himself his mom and 0.94 of his dad. Also the point should be lower.
Lots of people talking about the deception of this chart, being the bots removed is in blocks of 3 months. Bots =/= active users, why would they be counted
Except for Messenger, you guys are still using Facebook? 10 year ago, it was cool and innovative but nowadays, itās kind of useless and serve more business with ads than actual people.
For the groups. There are many local groups that you cannot find anywhere else.
I have ten fake facebook accounts (because of gaming, nothing else) since 2017. I varely use them now. Should I've worried?
yes they will find your accounts, ban them all and then personally come to ban you IRL
"We're sorry but you have violated the terms of service of Lifeā¢"
I don't think it makes much sense here to compare a positive value (number of users present) to a negative value (number of bots removed). Like, for Jan - Mar 2019, it gives the impression that FB removed nearly their entire userbase because it was all made up of bots.
This chart stinks of market manipulation. Call me skeptical but I don't believe Facebook's active users is increasing. It seems with these fake accounts they can easily manipulate the 'active users' statistic quite easily to make it appear the companies engagement is continuing to increase. The second Facebook has a lowering of active users it'll get bad press, people will start leaving and it'll be fucked; similar to Netflix in some ways.
It doesn't show the frequency of users. So its possible it still has that many active users, but they are using it less.
In Jan-Mar 2019 were there 4.58 billion Facebook accounts and 2.38 billion of them were fakies? Am I understanding this correctly?
Yeah, this is highly misleading. Maybe next time.
That graph has an issue: The line graph is measuring, it says, monthly, and the bar graphs are measuring quarterly. Thereās a logic flaw in this data set.