Technology

On TikTok, YouTube, X, and everywhere, ‘views’ are lies

Published

10 months ago

April 5, 2025

On TikTok, YouTube, X, and everywhere, ‘views’ are lies

Views are the most visible metric on the internet. You can see, in more or less real time, how many views something got on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and most other video platforms. X tracks views for every single thing you post, as does Threads. A view is the universal currency of success — more views, more fun.

But it’s all nonsense. Views are nothing. Views are lies.

You may not need me to remind you of this. We’ve known for years that view counts are meaningless, to the point that Facebook wound up getting sued for aggressively inflating view counts in an effort to convince people to make Facebook videos. Others have written thoughtfully about how stupid view counts are. But we still talk about view counts, view counts are still everywhere, so let’s talk once again about view counts.

A “view,” in reality, is not a universal metric. It’s not really anything. It is whatever a platform wants it to be, which usually has no actual correlation to whether someone actually encountered and experienced a piece of content. You can just make the views whatever you want! And if you don’t like the way the numbers look, make views something else!

Let’s just run through a few of these, shall we? The simplest ones to understand are the social platforms: Instagram, TikTok, and (as of last week) YouTube Shorts all count a view the second a video starts playing. This is objectively absurd. Every time you scroll, even if you immediately jump to the next video, the platform logs that you watched the video the same as if you’d seen the whole thing. That’s like saying, if you’re in a Best Buy and you walk past a TV playing Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, you’ve now technically seen Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Congratulations, you’re a pirate.

There are a lot of ways to game the social media ecosystem. One of them is to keep redefining your terms.

In a way, though, that ridiculously easy bar to clear is actually a more accurate measure than some others. On Facebook, for instance, a view is defined as “the number of times a reel or video was played, plus the number of times photos or text were on screen.” Since videos autoplay all over the platform, those two metrics are effectively the same thing. The metric is so unhelpful that Facebook actually offers creators two other numbers: three-second video views, also known as “people who pressed play,” and one-minute video views, which is at least slightly closer to “people who actually watched this thing.” Those numbers aren’t public, though, because they’d be much lower.

The view has been the universal Meta metric since last fall, when Facebook combined all its other performance and engagement metrics into just one. For photos, text posts, and Stories, the company wrote in a blog post, “Views are calculated as the number of times they appear on a person’s screen, including repeat views.” That used to be a different metric — your content being presented to someone was known as an “impression,” but they had to interact with it in some way before it became a view. Now it’s just views.

The idea that everything in your feed counts as a view is pernicious, and it’s everywhere

The idea that everything in your feed counts as a view is pernicious, and it’s everywhere. As you scroll on X, every single post on your feed gets a view as it flows up and off your screen. Posts that appear in search results, on someone’s profile page — anything that shows up on the page appears to be considered “viewed.” X’s documentation on post views is sketchy and vague, but its video rules are pretty straightforward: if the video was playing for at least two seconds, and half of the player was in view on your screen, then that counts as a view. All these videos play automatically, so we’re back to the same thing: if it loaded, you viewed it.

The reason so many companies have embraced such stupid metrics is both simple and self-reinforcing. If you’re the platform that counts views in a way that actually reflects reality, your numbers will be lower. Creators might see that, decide your platform doesn’t have the juice, and start posting somewhere they’ll ostensibly get more eyeballs. Advertisers might worry that they’ll be broadcasting to dead air. On the social web, momentum is everything, and sometimes you have to lie about the size of your party to get the first people in the door.

A screenshot of a tweet with 1.5 billion views.

If you believe the metrics, this tweet was a global phenomenon. You heard about it on the news, I bet.

In this way of defining views, the platforms also have all the control. Think about it: you don’t press play to get the video going, and you don’t have to stick around for it to count. Whatever the platform wants to get views, gets views. There is no step two, no intermediary, no actual matching of content and audience. There are just… views.

Even the Hollywood types are being pulled into the vortex of made-up view counts. Netflix once clocked a view only after you’d completed 70 percent of something — which, I should point out, is the closest thing to actually tracking whether you’ve watched something of any metric we’ve discussed so far. Now, it only takes two minutes for Netflix to decide you’ve watched something. Netflix actually picked two minutes because it’s “long enough to indicate the choice was intentional.” First of all, no it’s not. Second, Netflix knows how much you actually watched! It just wants the numbers to be higher — around 35 percent higher than under the previous metric, Netflix admitted.

Ironically, Netflix is one of the few streamers that explains how it calculates views at all; most keep their metrics quiet, so they can say things like “it was a huge hit!” without having to provide any actual information. Even YouTube is cagey about its calculations: it’s generally accepted wisdom that you have to watch 30 seconds of a standard YouTube video for it to count as a view, but if that’s official policy I sure can’t find it anywhere.

It is incredibly obvious, by the way, that all the companies peddling these fake numbers know what they’re doing. If they thought public-facing view counts were legit, they’d offer those same numbers to creators and advertisers. Creators typically get to see non-public data like watch time and actual interactions, but even they are consistently being given less and less to work with. Advertisers, though, have the run of the place: YouTube and other platforms still track impressions separately from views, but only for ads. (YouTube may count every Shorts scroll as a view publicly, but it only pays creators for what it calls “Engaged views.”) Many platforms even tell advertisers how many people watched a quarter, half, three-quarters, or all of a video. The platforms themselves are collecting all this data and more, of course, in an effort to better tune the algorithm. They know the answers! But they’ll never show them to you.

We’ve been doing this whole internet thing for a while now, and it’s pretty clear that just about all the metrics are bad. They’ve turned the internet into a game to be won, a system to be gamed, a race to the biggest numbers even when the numbers don’t mean anything. Maybe we’d all be better off without the numbers, but they’re not going anywhere. So all we can do is remember: “views” are not views. Views are lies.

Technology

You need to listen to the cosmic horror-comedy podcast Welcome to Night Vale

Published

9 hours ago

January 19, 2026

Press Room

It’s relatively rare for a podcast to last 14 years, especially a fiction one. In fact, as far as I can tell, Welcome to Night Vale is the longest continually running fiction podcast out there. (Some will argue it’s actually We’re Alive, but that has taken a few significant breaks between seasons.) The story of Night Vale, the titular desert town, now spans 12 seasons, over 280 episodes, three books, and at least 10 live standalone shows. While dedicating several hundred hours of your life to listening to every episode might seem like a big ask, I believe you’ll be hooked once you dive in.

The show is written by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor, who draw heavily on the work of H.P. Lovecraft. Every season has its own arc, but broadly, the show tells the story of a town that exists in an alternate version of Earth. In this town Angels are real, but acknowledging their existence is illegal; librarians are dangerous creatures with “thousands of spiny legs” and “pincers”; and there is a Faceless Old Woman who secretly lives in your home.

These are clearly unsettling concepts when taken at face value. But rather than trying to scare the listener, Cranor and Fink lean into the natural absurdity of cosmic horror and refuse to take themselves too seriously. They also routinely subvert the bigotry of their inspiration, using Lovecraftian creations to tell stories rich with LGBTQ+ characters.

Of course, having well-written scripts and telling a compelling story is only part of the equation. What elevates Welcome to Night Vale to true greatness is the cast, especially narrator Cecil Baldwin, who plays the host of the central radio show, Cecil Palmer. Cecil’s voice has the gravitas to tell ominous stories of secretive government agencies and ancient gods. But he has the range to deliver light-hearted banter with a sentient patch of haze (her name is Deb, in case you were wondering).

Cecil Baldwin has the charisma to make even the reading of a repair manual for a toaster compelling. He can be creepy, funny, or soothing, often all within the same episode. (For this reason, I don’t suggest listening to Night Vale at night. I have fallen asleep to the dulcet sounds of Baldwin’s voice several times, only for the more unsettling parts of the show to make their way into my dreams.)

Every episode also features a musical interlude in the guise of “The Weather.” The show mostly features lesser-known artists, but alumni include Jason Isbell, The Mountain Goats, Waxahatchee, Angel Olsen, Open Mike Eagle, and Sylvan Esso.

Welcome to Night Vale is also a great way to introduce younger listeners to horror. I would never suggest my eight-year-old read H.P. Lovecraft. Partly because the man’s unrepentant racism is baked into the very fabric of his stories, but also because the violence is often too much for children. Night Vale, on the other hand, takes those horrors and exposes them for what they are: entertainment. I can put the podcast on, bond with my kid over their burgeoning love of all things creepy and weird, and trust that they’ll walk away with a good message.

Welcome to Night Vale is available on most podcast platforms, including Apple Podcasts, Pocketcasts, YouTube, and Spotify.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

Terrence O’Brien

Technology

New personal eVTOL promises personal flight under $40K

Published

10 hours ago

January 19, 2026

Press Room

New personal eVTOL promises personal flight under K

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Personal electric aircraft have teased us for years. They look futuristic, promise freedom from traffic, and usually come with prices that put them out of reach or timelines that feel uncertain. Recently unveiled at CES 2026, the Rictor X4 entered that conversation with some bold claims.

It is a single-passenger electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft designed to make short-range personal flight more accessible and far more affordable. If those promises hold up, it could change how we think about flying for everyday trips.

Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter

CES 2026 put health tech front and center, with companies showcasing smarter ways to support prevention, mobility and long-term wellness. (CES)

TECH STARTUP, MAJOR AIRLINE PARTNER TO LAUNCH ELECTRIC AIR TAXI SERVICE

What the Rictor X4 actually is

The Rictor X4 uses a multirotor design with eight propellers spread across four carbon fiber arms. Those arms fold inward when the aircraft is not in use, allowing it to fit in the bed of a pickup truck. The aircraft focuses on low-altitude flight and short hops rather than long journeys.

Key specs include:

Top speed of about 50 mph
Maximum flight time of 20 minutes
Payload capacity of up to 220 pounds, including the pilot

It can lift off and land vertically like a helicopter, then transition into forward flight once airborne. Rictor describes its mission as light aerial mobility, which essentially means short-distance commuting and professional applications.

Inside the X4’s propulsion and power system

According to Rictor, the X4’s propulsion system is built around stability and redundancy rather than raw speed. Each axis uses a coaxial dual-motor configuration designed to provide consistent thrust during low-altitude flight.

Key propulsion details include:

Rated thrust of up to 165 pounds per axis
Peak thrust exceeding 285 pounds per axis
Maximum continuous power output of 10 kW
120-volt operating system designed for outdoor conditions

Together, these systems aim to deliver controlled, predictable flight with built-in safety margins, especially during takeoff, landing and hover.

The Rictor X4 is a single-passenger electric aircraft designed for short-range, low-altitude flight with a folding multirotor layout. (Rictor)

Safety systems and flight control in the Rictor X4

Rictor puts safety at the center of the X4’s design. The aircraft uses a semi-solid state battery system with dual battery redundancy, which helps enable a controlled landing if one battery module fails. In addition, an emergency parachute system provides backup protection during critical situations. At the same time, a centralized flight control system actively manages propulsion, attitude and overall system health. This system continuously monitors key flight data to help maintain stability in changing conditions.

Beyond software, the hardware plays an important role. The X4 features 63-inch carbon fiber folding propellers in a 4-axis, 8-propeller configuration. Together, they support a payload of up to 220 pounds, including the pilot. According to Rictor, the aircraft is designed to operate at noise levels below 65 decibels, although independent testing has not yet been published. Finally, Rictor’s proprietary Dynamic Balance Algorithm adjusts the output of all eight motors in real time. As a result, the X4 can maintain a stable hover even in side winds rated up to Level 6.

The FAA rule that could make personal flight easier

One of Rictor’s most attention-grabbing claims involves regulation. The company says the X4 is designed to comply with FAA Part 103, which governs ultralight vehicles in the U.S. If operated within Part 103 limits, the X4 could be flown legally without airworthiness certification or a pilot’s license. Rictor says this is enabled by autonomous pre-programmed flight paths and very low altitude operation, reportedly as low as three meters above ground. It is worth noting that Part 103 still carries operational restrictions, including where and how flight can occur. Final compliance depends on real-world use and FAA interpretation.

Designed to fold, transport, and recharge

Portability is a major focus. Rictor says the X4 folds down to about 42 cubic feet, which makes it compact enough to transport in the bed of a pickup truck. The company also highlights in-vehicle charging support while parked or on the move, positioning the X4 as something that can be transported and recharged alongside ground vehicles rather than stored at an airfield.

AIR TAXI SERVICE PLANS EVTOL RIDES FROM ALL THREE NYC AIRPORTS

The price that resets expectations

The Rictor X4 carries a launch price of $39,900 with a $5,000 deposit. That alone separates it from most personal eVTOLs currently discussed in the market. The aircraft is produced by Kuickwheel Technology, Rictor’s parent company. According to the company, first customer deliveries are scheduled for Q2 2026. As with any aircraft launch, timelines remain aspirational until production units reach customers.

Why this matters now

Personal eVTOLs have lived in a narrow space between concept and reality. High costs, regulatory hurdles and safety concerns have slowed adoption. If Rictor delivers an aircraft that performs as described while operating within ultralight rules, it could expand personal flight beyond niche enthusiasts and into practical short-range use. Now it comes down to whether the company can deliver on what it’s promising.

Take my quiz: How safe is your online security?

Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: Cyberguy.com

Kurt’s key takeaways

The Rictor X4 brings together aggressive pricing, compact design and regulatory positioning in a way we have not seen before. Folding propellers, redundant safety systems and Part 103 alignment make it one of the most ambitious personal eVTOL launches to date. The unanswered questions center on real-world performance, regulatory interpretation and production readiness. Until aircraft are flying outside controlled demonstrations, healthy skepticism remains warranted. Still, this is one of the most compelling personal flight announcements to come out of CES in recent years.

Would you trust a personal eVTOL like this for everyday trips, or does flight still feel like a step too far for now? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on “FOX & Friends.” Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Technology

Microsoft’s first Windows 11 update of 2026 stopped some computers from shutting down

Published

22 hours ago

January 18, 2026

Press Room

Microsoft’s first Windows 11 update of 2026 stopped some computers from shutting down

Microsoft has identified issues upon installing the January 2026 Windows security update. To address these issues, an out-of-band (OOB) update was released today, January 17, 2026.

– Connection and authentication failures in remote connection applications: This issue affects multiple platforms including Windows 11, version 25H2; Windows 10, version 22H2 ESU; and Windows Server 2025. See the bottom of this message for the complete list of affected products.

-Devices with Secure Launch might fail to shut down or hibernate: This issue only affects Windows 11, version 23H2.