Technology

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

Published

9 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

Rad Power Bikes files for bankruptcy protection

Published

11 hours ago

December 17, 2025

Press Room

Rad Power Bikes files for bankruptcy protection

Rad Power Bikes, the once dominant electric bicycle brand in the US, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this week as it seeks to sell of its company. The move comes less than a month after Rad Power said it could not afford to recall its older e-bike batteries that had been designated a fire risk by the US Consumer Protection Safety Commission.

The bankruptcy, which was first reported by Bicycle Retailer, was filed in US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington, near the company’s headquarters in Seattle. Rad Power lists its estimated assets at $32.1 million and estimated liabilities at $72.8 million. Its inventory of e-bikes, spare parts, and accessories is listged at $14.2 million, Bicycle Retailer says.

It’s a stunning reversal for the once leading e-bike company in the US. Mike Radenbaugh founded the company in 2015 after several years of selling custom-made e-bikes to customers on the West Coast. Rad Power quickly grew to over 11 distinct models, including the fat-tire RadRover, the long-tail RadWagon, and the versatile RadRunner. Rad Power Bikes raised an approximate total of $329 million across several funding rounds, primarily in 2021, with major investments from firms like Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, and T. Rowe Price.

But in the wake of the post-covid bike boom, things started to go south. There were supply chain disruptions, safety recalls, several rounds of layoffs, and executive turnover. Last month, Rad Power said it was facing “significant financial challenges” that could lead to its imminent closure without a cash infusion.

The CPSC warning apparently was the nail in the coffin. The company’s older batteries could “unexpectedly ignite and explode,” the agency warned, citing 31 fires, including 12 reports of property damage totaling $734,500. There weren’t any injuries, but the company said it couldn’t afford a costly recall.

Rad Power could still live on if its able to find a buyer for its assets and brand. Dutch e-bike make VanMoof was able to find a buyer following its 2023 bankruptcy. And Belgium’s Cowboy is in talks to be acquired by a French holding company of several bike brands. Rad Power will continue to operate as it restructures its debts under court supervision, and in a statement to Bicycle Retailer said it will continue to sell bikes and work with customers and vendors as it moves forward with the process.

Technology

Chrome rolls out AI podcast feature on Android

Published

12 hours ago

December 17, 2025

Press Room

Chrome rolls out AI podcast feature on Android

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Chrome on Android now offers a fresh way to digest information when your hands are busy or your eyes need a break.

A new update powered by Google Gemini can turn written webpages into short podcast-style summaries. Two virtual hosts chat about the content, making it feel easier to follow during your commute or while you multitask.

This upgrade builds on Chrome’s long-standing read-aloud tool, yet now adds a more natural and lively delivery. It does not work on every website, so some pages will still use the original word-for-word reading. When the AI option appears, though, the audio feels polished and smooth.

Below is how to try it on your Android phone right now.

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.

HOW TO DISABLE GEMINI AI ON ANDROID AND KEEP CONTROL OF YOUR APPS

Make sure you have the newest Chrome version so the AI podcast feature works. (Cyberguy.com)

Update Chrome before you start

First, make sure Chrome is current in the Play Store by opening the Play Store, searching for Google Chrome and tapping Update if it appears. The AI podcast feature works with version 140.0.7339.124 or newer, so confirm you have at least that version installed. Once you finish the update, open Chrome and pick any webpage with text you want to hear.

Settings may vary depending on your Android phone’s manufacturer.

Open the More menu

Tap the More icon or the three vertical dots in the upper right corner. This reveals a set of options that control how Chrome displays or reads the page.

Select Listen to this page

Choose Listen to this page. You will see a small Generating AI playback banner at the bottom. The processing is fast, so you will not wait long.

Hear the AI hosts discuss the page

Chrome will start a mini podcast with two voices talking through the content. You can tap the playback bar to pause, rewind or jump ahead. The panel stays on screen and follows you as you scroll.

Switch to standard playback when you want

The AI audio keeps going even if you leave the webpage. If you prefer a traditional word-for-word readback, tap the AI playback icon in the lower left and pick Standard Playback.

Chrome begins creating the AI audio as soon as you tap the “Listen to this Page” option. (iStock)

ANDROID EMERGENCY LIVE VIDEO GIVES 911 EYES ON THE SCENE

What this means to you

This feature can make long articles easier to absorb when you are on the move. You get a quick, conversational rundown without having to read a full page. It also helps you revisit information faster since the controls work like any audio player. If you enjoy podcasts, this tool gives you a familiar way to stay informed without draining your attention.

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

Chrome’s AI podcast feature brings a new layer of convenience to Android. It saves time, reduces eye strain and turns everyday browsing into a hands-free audio experience. Since it still supports the standard read-aloud mode, you can switch back anytime.

Would you use AI hosts to read your favorite websites, or do you prefer the classic readback style? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

Using the new update powered by Google Gemini, you can change from the AI podcast to a simple word-for-word reading at any time. (“I’ve Had It” YouTube channel)

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

Even Trump’s chief of staff was ‘aghast’ at Elon Musk’s deadly USAID cuts

Published

23 hours ago

December 16, 2025

Press Room

Even Trump’s chief of staff was ‘aghast’ at Elon Musk’s deadly USAID cuts

Wiles says she called Musk on the carpet. “You can’t just lock people out of their offices,” she recalls telling him. At first, Wiles didn’t grasp the effect that slashing USAID programs would have on humanitarian aid. “I didn’t know a lot about the extent of their grant making.” But with immunizations halted in Africa, lives would be lost. Soon she was getting frantic calls from relief agency heads and former government officials with a dire message: Thousands of lives were in the balance.

Wiles continued: “So Marco is on his way to Panama. We call him and say, ‘You’re Senate-confirmed. You’re going to have to be the custodian, essentially, of [USAID].’ ‘Okay,’ he says.” But Musk forged ahead—all throttle, no brake. “Elon’s attitude is you have to get it done fast. If you’re an incrementalist, you just won’t get your rocket to the moon,” Wiles said. “And so with that attitude, you’re going to break some china. But no rational person could think the USAID process was a good one. Nobody.”