http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41812369
Other social media numbers;
- 80k Facebook posts that reached 126m Americans
- 170 Instagram accounts with 120k posts
- 2752 Twitter accounts with 131k posts
- 18 YouTube channels with 1k+ videos
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41812369
Other social media numbers;
- 80k Facebook posts that reached 126m Americans
- 170 Instagram accounts with 120k posts
- 2752 Twitter accounts with 131k posts
- 18 YouTube channels with 1k+ videos
goodness, that seems a.. not insignificant reach
That sounds like a lot but I"m not sure it actually is. Would like to see that in comparison to total posts/reach etc.
I think Twitter said about 0.75% of all US election season tweets were from Russian accounts.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Across the various platforms, it seems like FB got the most traction, even with fewer total posts, but it's really hard to grasp such abstract numbers.
126m Americans is about the same number of people that voted in the election.
I heard twitter was going to start putting who paid for what ads on there? Or maybe that was facebook? I think that's a good start. Maybe don't allow foreign govts to purchase political ads?
Well it's also hard to grasp because as they say reach doesn't necessarily mean seen let alone read just means it appeared somewhere in the feed. And of course can almost guarantee that's really a number of accounts vice people. Who knows how many are alts and/or fakes. Doesn't really define what it means by it or what metric they use but does say that 29 million actually directly saw the posts
Sputnik.
A lot of those FB posts were then copied to other social media platforms by those who were bamboozled. I'm friends with an old black guy who believes nearly everything he reads on the internet (even sourced the Onion a few times). I'm sure he got cucked by more than a few Russian posts that he then went and shared to all of his social media platforms and the thousands who follow him.
It says the posts showed up in the feeds of 126m people.
How that's different from 29m "seen directly" when they claim they don't know how many of those 126m actually read them makes the whole thing very unclear.
Like I said they don't really go into the metrics of seen directly. I'd imagine they could probably figure out who was actually logged on when it was in their feed or something.
As far as reach would need a different article to get a direct quote since. I can't really see if they are specifying post reach or total reach which apparently are very different things and getting paraphrases does lose something in the translation. Though both do include ads which a lot of people block to varying degrees of success