Viral WhatsApp messages dropped 70 percent in less than a month

[nanoguy]

Why it matters: WhatsApp is currently used by more than 2 billion people, and uses end-to-end encryption that makes it hard for Facebook to filter misleading content. However, the company has chosen to limit users' ability to spread viral messages on the platform, which appears to be striking a good balance between allowing people to continue sharing information and preventing the wrong kind of information from being broadcast to a large number of users.

Earlier this month, Facebook introduced stricter limits for WhatsApp message forwarding in an effort to curb the spread of Covid-19 misinformation and fake news. Specifically, it made it impossible for any user to share viral messages with more than one chat a time in the hopes that they're less inclined to do it if it requires more work.

It turns out that it works in practice, and WhatsApp reported that it saw a 70 percent reduction in the number of messages that are highly forwarded on the platform globally. And by "highly forwarded," it means any message that has already been forwarded more than five times.

Image credit: CNN

Facebook first introduced these safeguards in 2018, when it limited the forwarding of viral messages to 20 and later just five chats at a time, which translated into a 25 percent reduction in their ability to spread on the platform.

Not all forwarding is bad, but the social giant has no way of knowing exactly what its users share in chats. However, given the scale of WhatsApp -- over two billion monthly users as of writing -- and a 40 percent increase in overall activity, Facebook has chosen a sensible solution that appears to work.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/84997-viral-whatsapp-messages-dropped-70-percent-less-than.html

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I desperately need an alternative to Facebook.

Someone needs to invent something, market it as "anti-Facebook" or a "freer Facebook" and then resist them when they attempt to buy you out.

On the surface, it looks like they are performing a service by blocking information, but the more and more I see the bias, it reminds me of Metal Gear solid's PATRIOT AI that automatically removes information and censors everything.

 

[Axil00]

I desperately need an alternative to Facebook.

Someone needs to invent something, market it as "anti-Facebook" or a "freer Facebook" and then resist them when they attempt to buy you out.

On the surface, it looks like they are performing a service by blocking information, but the more and more I see the bias, it reminds me of Metal Gear solid's PATRIOT AI that automatically removes information and censors everything.

I agree, they need to either be fully liable for ANYTHING posted on their platform or stop attempting to play the role of 'Arbiter of Truth'.

They claim this about the safety of thier platform. Are they willing to be liable for censoring somthing that turns out to be true?

Yes they are a private company. They still aren't allowed to lie to their customers. Claiming they are censoring inaccurate information without having experts in whatever is being focused meticulously look over it is a lie. If you want to delete stuff arbitrarily go for it. But let your customers know that you are purposefully censoring information for no objective reason.

 

[Reehahs]

No filtering can beat gullible contacts.

 

[pit1209]

I agree, they need to either be fully liable for ANYTHING posted on their platform or stop attempting to play the role of 'Arbiter of Truth'.

They claim this about the safety of thier platform. Are they willing to be liable for censoring somthing that turns out to be true?

Yes they are a private company. They still aren't allowed to lie to their customers. Claiming they are censoring inaccurate information without having experts in whatever is being focused meticulously look over it is a lie. If you want to delete stuff arbitrarily go for it. But let your customers know that you are purposefully censoring information for no objective reason.

Just give 1 reason why this could be considered censorship? They can share the messages all they want just have to do it one at a time, I see no censorship going on and in my experience the 99% of the crap people tend to share like this is completely false.