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.
Technology
On TikTok, YouTube, X, and everywhere, ‘views’ are lies
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.
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.
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
The Iranian women Trump ‘saved’ from execution are simultaneously real and AI-manipulated
Only the night before, he had posted on Truth Social about the imminent executions of these women, quoting a screenshot that included a collage of eight glamorously backlit, soft-focus portraits. The photos of the women were immediately accused of being AI-generated. “Trump is begging Iranian leaders to not execute 8 AI-generated women. This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen,” said one viral X post.
On top of that, almost immediately after Trump’s announcement, Mizan, an Iranian state news agency, called the president a liar. “Last night, Donald Trump, citing a completely false news story, called on Iran to overturn the death sentences of eight women.” Mizan said that some of the women had already been released and others were facing prison time but not execution, and furthermore said that Tehran had made no concessions — presumably, the status of the women has not changed.
The X account for the Iranian embassy in South Africa, perhaps the most relentless shitposter among Iran’s state-affiliated accounts, was quick to pile on by generating its own set of eight women:
The collage that Trump posted is, at the very least, AI-modified, Mahsa Alimardani, the associate director of the Technology Threats & Opportunities program at WITNESS, told The Verge. But the women themselves are real. The woman in the top right corner of the collage is Bita Hemmati, whose photograph appeared in several news stories in various right-leaning news outlets last week. Hemmati is confirmed to have received a death sentence issued by Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court for “operational action for the hostile government of the United States and hostile groups.”
Alimardani named six of the women (Bita Hemmati, Mahboubeh Shabani, Venus Hossein-Nejad, Golnaz Naraghi, Diana Taherabadi, Ghazal Ghalandri), and said that the identities of the final two (said to be Panah Movahedi and Ensieh Nejati) were still unverified. The six verified women participated in protests against the government in January. Aside from Hemmati, none of the other women are reported to have received death sentences.
It’s not surprising that Trump has a careless disregard for the truth; it’s not surprising, either, for the Iranian regime to fudge the details to suit its own narrative, or to make light of real political prisoners in order to dunk on the United States.
The additional wrinkle is that the account mocking Trump for coming to the rescue of “8 AI-generated women” is the very same one that landed South Korean president Lee Jae-myung in hot water when he quoted a misleading labeled video posted by that account. Israeli officials have accused the account of being “well-known for spreading disinformation.” The case of the sketchy Lee Jae-myung quote-post is a story of mingled truth and misinformation, where the post got facts very wrong, but the video — of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers shoving a limp body off a rooftop in Gaza — was real, documenting an event that possibly implicates Israeli forces in a violation of international law.
The case of the eight Iranian protesters also features that same mingling of fact and fiction into a fuzzy distortion that fuels an endless disputation of real human rights violations. Their lives have been reduced to glossy pixels and quote-dunks, the stuff of propaganda and parody. While known liars fight with each other on the internet about who these women are and what will happen to them, they — verifiably six of them, at least — remain real people who exist beyond the Iranian internet blackout.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
You probably didn’t expect a travel booking platform to send you into a security spiral. Yet here we are.
Booking.com confirmed that hackers may have accessed customer data, including names, email addresses, phone numbers and booking details. That is enough information to make scam messages look real.
If you’ve booked a hotel or rental through the platform, this is worth your attention.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
SMART TRAVEL SAFETY TIPS BEFORE YOUR NEXT TRIP
Booking.com says hackers may have accessed customer names, emails, phone numbers and reservation details. The breach could make phishing messages look far more convincing. (KairosDee/Getty Images)
What happened in the Booking.com data breach
The company sent email notifications to affected customers after detecting “suspicious activity involving unauthorized third parties” accessing guest booking information. That’s the corporate way of saying someone got in who shouldn’t have been there.
One user shared the full notification on Reddit, where dozens of others said they received the same message. That suggests this was not an isolated case. The notice warned that anything customers “may have shared with the accommodation” could also have been exposed, meaning the breach went beyond basic account data.
What data was exposed in the Booking.com breach
Booking.com confirmed that financial information was not accessed. Physical home addresses were also not part of the breach, according to the company. So no, someone doesn’t have your credit card number or home address from this incident.
What they do potentially have: your name, email address, phone number and the details of your reservation. That’s enough to craft a convincing phishing message, which some hackers may already be doing.
“At Booking.com, we are dedicated to the security and data protection of our guests,” a Booking.com spokesperson said in a statement to CyberGuy. “We recently noticed some suspicious activity involving unauthorized third parties being able to access some of our guests’ booking information, which may include booking details, names, email addresses and phone numbers and anything that travelers may have shared with the accommodation.”
“Financial information was not accessed from Booking.com’s systems, nor were guests’ physical addresses,” the spokesperson continued. “Upon discovering the activity, we took action to contain the issue. We have updated the PIN number for these reservations and informed our guests.”
APPLE NOW LETS YOU ADD YOUR PASSPORT TO YOUR PHONE’S WALLET
A Booking.com breach exposed personal and reservation data that scammers can use to craft realistic fraud attempts. (Annette Riedl/picture alliance)
How scammers are using stolen booking data
A user who posted the notification on Reddit said that two weeks before receiving it, they got a phishing message on WhatsApp that included their real booking details and personal information. That timing matters. It suggests hackers may have already been using the data before many customers were notified.
It is not clear whether that earlier phishing attempt is directly tied to this specific breach, but it shows how detailed booking information can be used in targeted scams.
That is what makes this breach more dangerous than it first appears. When scammers know where you are staying and when, they can create messages that feel legitimate. A fake alert about a problem with your reservation or a request to confirm payment details suddenly looks real.
How past incidents highlight potential risks
This breach did not happen in a vacuum. In 2024, hackers infected computers at multiple hotels with a type of consumer-grade spyware known as stalkerware. In one documented case, a hotel employee was logged into their Booking.com admin portal when the software captured a screenshot of the screen, exposing visible customer data.
That detail points to a broader issue. In some cases, vulnerabilities may exist not just within a platform, but across the hotels and systems connected to it. The current breach may follow a similar pattern, though the company has not confirmed how the unauthorized access occurred.
To put the scale in context, Booking.com says 6.8 billion bookings have been made through the platform since 2010. Even a small percentage of affected users represents a large number of people.
NEW FBI WARNING REVEALS PHISHING ATTACKS HITTING PRIVATE CHATS
A Booking.com breach exposed personal and reservation data that scammers can use to craft realistic fraud attempts. Security experts warn travelers to verify any message about their stay. (martin-dm/Getty Images)
Ways to stay safe after the Booking.com breach
You don’t have to swear off travel apps to protect yourself. A few targeted steps go a long way.
1) Check for an official notification
Check your email for a message from Booking.com. If you received one, take it seriously rather than filing it away. The company says it has updated PINs for affected reservations, but your account itself may still need attention.
2) Update your password now
Change your Booking.com password, especially if you reuse it anywhere else. Credential stuffing attacks are common after breaches, and reused passwords make it easy for hackers to break into other accounts. A password manager can help you create and store strong, unique passwords so you are not relying on the same one across multiple sites. Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2026 at Cyberguy.com.
3) Turn on two-factor authentication
Enable two-factor authentication (2FA) if you haven’t already. It adds a step, but it also blocks access even if someone has your password.
4) Consider identity theft protection
Even though financial data was not accessed, exposed personal details can still be used in scams or identity theft attempts. An identity protection service can monitor your information, alert you to suspicious activity and provide support if your identity is compromised. See my tips and best picks on Best Identity Theft Protection at Cyberguy.com.
5) Watch for highly targeted phishing messages
Be skeptical of any message that references your booking details, whether it arrives by email, text or WhatsApp. Legitimate companies rarely ask you to click a link and re-enter payment information. Hackers with your booking data can write convincing fakes that look urgent.
6) Verify bookings through official channels
If you get a message about your reservation, do not click the link. Open the Booking.com app or type the website address manually. You can also contact the hotel directly using the number listed on its official website.
7) Add a safety net in case you click something malicious
If you accidentally click a suspicious link, strong antivirus software can help detect malicious websites or downloads before they cause damage. Look for tools that offer real-time protection and phishing detection, not just basic virus scans. Get my picks for the best 2026 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android & iOS devices at Cyberguy.com.
8) Limit how your personal data is exposed online
Data brokers collect and sell personal details like your phone number and email address. That makes it easier for scammers to connect stolen booking data to a real person. Removing your information from these sites with a data removal service can reduce how often you are targeted. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.
9) Report anything suspicious quickly
If you receive a phishing attempt that includes your real reservation details, contact Booking.com directly and report the message to your phone carrier or email provider. Reporting helps shut down scams faster.
Kurt’s key takeaways
Data breaches at major travel platforms are uncomfortable precisely because travel feels personal. Your itinerary, your accommodation and your plans are wrapped up in those booking details, and now someone else may have a copy. The good news is that financial information and home addresses were not part of this breach. The bad news is that the stolen data is detailed enough to be weaponized in targeted phishing attacks, and there’s evidence that it already has been. Booking.com updated its customers, reset PINs for affected reservations and publicly confirmed the incident. That’s more transparency than many companies offer. But the fact that users were receiving phishing messages on WhatsApp two weeks before the formal notification went out is worth sitting with. You can’t control whether the platform you use gets breached. You can control whether you’re an easy target once your data is out there.
How much responsibility should companies like Booking.com take when your personal data fuels scams? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
- Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
I’ve recommended several OLED gaming monitors to readers over the years, and I’ve finally taken my own advice to buy one. Alienware’s new 27-inch 1440p QD-OLED has all the features that I want and a low $350 price that was too tempting to ignore.
The AW2726DM model has five things that make it stand out for the price: a 1440p QD-OLED screen with lush contrast, a fast 240Hz refresh rate, a semi-glossy screen coating to enhance details, a low-profile design without flashy RGB LEDs, and a great warranty (three years with coverage for burn-in).
I’ve been using Alienware’s new monitor for a couple days, and I’ve already spent hours with it playing Marathon. It was my first opportunity to see Bungie’s new first-person extraction shooter in its full HDR glory, and I can never go back. Switching on HDR wasn’t automatic, though it already looked so much better than my IPS panel without being activated.
Enabling it transformed how Marathon looked for the better, but made everything else about the OS look pretty washed-out. It’s a Windows issue, not an Alienware issue. It’s easy to enable HDR every time I launch a game and disable it afterward with the Windows + Alt + B keyboard shortcut, but unfortunately triggers HDR for all connected displays. This includes my IPS monitor that imbues everything with a terrible gray hue when HDR is on. So, using the system settings is the best way to adjust HDR for just the QD-OLED.
I landed on this QD-OLED after having spent a ton of time researching pricier models. The unanimous takeaway from reviewers was that LG’s Tandem RGB WOLED panels are some of the brightest out there, but also tend to exhibit lousy gray uniformity in dark scenes. QD-OLED monitors, on the other hand, offer slightly better contrast than WOLED and don’t suffer from those same uniformity issues. However, blacks sometimes appear as dark purple in bright rooms on QD-OLED panels, meaning they’re ideal for rooms that don’t have a bunch of light bouncing around.
There’s no perfect choice, and honestly I got tired of doing research, so I jumped in with the cheapest OLED. I’m glad that I did. Shopping for an OLED gaming monitor can be hard, but it can also be this easy. AOC makes a model that’s discounted to $339.99 at the time of publishing, and its specs are comparable.
As expected, the AW2726DM isn’t a cutting-edge monitor. Its QD-OLED panel isn’t as fast or as bright as some other pricier options, and it doesn’t have USB ports for connecting accessories. Considering its low price, it’s easy for me to overlook those omissions. I’d have a much harder time accepting them in a pricier display.
The fact that I mostly use my computer for text-based work at The Verge is what prevented me from upgrading to an OLED monitor. My 1440p IPS monitor is bright, it’s good at showing text clearly, and it has a fast refresh rate for gaming. Alienware’s QD-OLED is less bright, and some might be bothered by how text looks (I have to really squint to see the slight fringing from this QD-OLED’s subpixel layout). But I have a life outside of work, which includes playing a lot of PC games. That’s the slice of myself I bought this monitor for, and I’m so happy I did.
Photography by Cameron Faulkner / The Verge
-
Health10 seconds agoHow Well Will You Age? Take Our Quiz to Find Out.
-
Culture12 minutes agoPoetry Challenge Day 4: What The Stars Can Teach Us About Love
-
Lifestyle18 minutes agoThe Japanese Designers Changing Men’s Wear
-
Education24 minutes agoOpinion | Yale Has Come Up With a Surefire Way to Make a Terrible Situation Worse
-
Technology30 minutes agoThe Iranian women Trump ‘saved’ from execution are simultaneously real and AI-manipulated
-
World36 minutes agoFormer Mexican beauty queen found shot dead as investigators examine possible family involvement: reports
-
Politics42 minutes agoManhattan DA’s office employee charged with sexual abuse after alleged incident on Queens subway
-
Health48 minutes agoRed hair may be increasing as study points to surprising evolution trend