{"id":2677,"date":"2017-01-06T21:11:00","date_gmt":"2017-01-06T21:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/facebook-needs-to-crack-down-on-fake-live-videos.html"},"modified":"2017-01-06T21:11:00","modified_gmt":"2017-01-06T21:11:00","slug":"facebook-needs-to-crack-down-on-fake-live-videos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rbsitsoftwaresolution.in\/blog\/facebook-needs-to-crack-down-on-fake-live-videos.html","title":{"rendered":"Facebook needs to crack down on fake \u201cLive\u201d videos"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

Was that space walk or climb of a massive antenna tower really shot on Facebook Live? No. Is the point of Facebook Live to show a virtual clock counting down to the new year? No. Yet these are some of the videos that have crookedly taken advantage of the notifications and extra News Feed visibility of Facebook Live posts.<\/p>\n

Facebook\u2019s fake news problem isn\u2019t isolated to text articles. Both social media-specific outlets like Interestinate and big name publishers paid by Facebook like BuzzFeed are abusing the Live video format to boost their viewership and score new followers. 5 of the top 10 Facebook Live videos<\/a> of 2016\u00a0were just graphical counters<\/a>, like countdown clocks and polls.<\/p>\n

\"581c68f2150000b700531ae1\"<\/p>\n

A fake \u201cLive\u201d video from November 2016 that was actually recorded in 2015 received at least 6.7 million views. Image via Huffington Post<\/p>\n

When asked about fighting abuse of the Live format, Facebook pointed me to a single line in its platform policy<\/a> that says \u201cEnsure any pre-recorded content is clearly distinguishable from live content.\u201d Facebook also admits it posted but never announced a\u00a0December 6th update<\/a> to a March 2016 blog post about videos getting extra visibility in feeds while Live. It says:<\/p>\n

\n

We\u2019ve heard feedback from people that they don\u2019t find graphics-only polls to be an interesting type of Live content \u2013 for example, \u201cPress Love for peanut butter, Haha for jelly\u201d where the whole stream consists of static or looping graphics or images. Given this feedback we\u2019re now taking steps to reduce the visibility of Live streams that consist entirely of graphics with voting. If you post a Live video with graphics-only polls, it may not show up as high in people\u2019s News Feeds.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Now TechCrunch has learned that Facebook is considering reducing the feed presence of more \u201cLive\u201d videos that aren\u2019t actually live, specifically in an effort to discourage \u201ccountdown\u201d videos that don\u2019t use polling but are just a graphic.<\/p>\n

But to truly fix the problem, Facebook needs a robust policy about Live and how it will punish offenders.<\/p>\n

For a limited time only!<\/h2>\n

It only took a year for fake Live videos to start becoming a serious problem. In late October 2016, several viral content Facebook Pages, including Viral USA, Interestinate and Unilad, posted an allegedly Live video of a space walk on the International Space station that was actually recorded in 2013. Unilad\u2019s version received more than 19 million views, and was never taken down<\/a>. That Page now has 23 million followers, showing that fake Live content can help publishers build an audience.<\/p>\n

\"fake-facebook-live-video\"<\/p>\n

A few days later, Interestinate was at it again with a Live video purporting to be someone climbing an amazingly tall tower to \u201creplace a lightbulb.\u201d The clip was from a year earlier, and actually showed someone inspecting a digital radio antenna. The 18-minute clip was looped multiple times to make it the max length for Live videos \u2014 four hours \u2014 giving the stream time to build a bigger and bigger viewership. It received at least 6.7 million views<\/a>. The clip has since been removed.<\/p>\n

These fake videos are clearly designed to dupe the public and rack up views, but there\u2019s also a less well-defined issue of what Facebook Live is supposed to be used for. For example, do Live videos have to use real footage rather than just a computer graphic?<\/p>\n

While Facebook Live is often used for monologues, QAs, citizen journalism, event coverage and entertainment, some publishers are simply rigging graphics to play for the maximum broadcast length of four hours. BuzzFeed scored 11 million views with this \u201cCountdown Until 2016 Is Finally Over.\u201d The four-hour post published five days before the start of 2017 is just a countdown clock over a looping stock graphic of a fire.<\/p>\n

While possibly amusing for a moment, it seems far from what Facebook had in mind for Live.<\/p>\n

Fighting the living dead<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s time for Facebook to lay out some clear rules for Live to protect users\u2019 attention and prevent gaming of the feed. Right now, the closest thing Facebook has to a Live policy is that this content must abide by its standard content policies<\/a>, and this statement buried in the FAQ of the Live API:<\/p>\n

\n

Can I add pre-recorded video into a live post?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We encourage all live broadcasts to exclusively contain live content so as to preserve the integrity of a viewer\u2019s experience. However, there are unique cases in which cutting to a pre-recorded clip makes sense, similar to how a news show might show previously recorded content on live TV.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Facebook will need to do more than \u201cencourage\u201d good behavior to keep publishers from abusing Live. It needs to spell out clear policies for what\u2019s allowed and what isn\u2019t, with consequences for accounts that break the rules that go beyond just removing the one offending video.<\/p>\n

\"facebook<\/p>\n

Here are some suggestions for these rules:<\/p>\n