Hoax, hoax, HOAX!! Why people are still falling for internet deception

Don't fall for the hoax: Facebook isn't restricting your News Feed to 25 friends

Rob Price Business Insider
Aug. 11, 2018, 9:45 AM

lThere's a viral Facebook post making the rounds that claims the News Feed is restricting what you see to just 25 friends.

Spoiler alert: It's just not true.

No, Facebook is not restricting the content you see on your News Feed to just 25 or 26 friends.

Over the last few months, a hoax has been making the rounds on the social network. It claims, in essence, that Facebook has implemented an algorithm change that means you will only see posts from a select few of your friends. Anyone else is flat out of luck.

The hoax encourages users to combat this by copying and pasting a faux-informative message about the "change" — and then asking users' friends to reply to the post.

Here's one example Business Insider has seen (the wording often varies slightly):

Hello Friends - I'm jumping on the bandwagon too....Fighting this Facebook algorithm change, because I'm noticing I am not seeing so many of my friends posts. Here is how to avoid hearing from the same 26 FB friends and nobody else. This post explains why we don't see all posts from our friends. Funny, I thought if I followed you on Facebook I would see what you post. Not anymore.....

Your newsfeed recently shows only posts from the same few people, about 25, repeatedly the same, because Facebook has a new algorithm....

Their system chooses the people who will read your posts. However I would like to choose for myself, therefore, I ask you all a favor- if you are reading this message leave me a quick comment, a "hey" or sticker, whatever you want, so you will appear in my newsfeed please!

Otherwise Facebook chooses who to show me and I don't need Facebook to choose my friends. Please copy and paste on your wall so you can have more interaction with all your contacts and bypass the system. That's why we don't see all posts from our friends.

Hold your finger down anywhere on this post and "copy" will pop up. Click "copy". Then go to your page, start a new post on your page, then put your finger anywhere in the blank field. "Paste" will pop up and click on it to paste. Thank you all!

Variations of this hoax have been circulating since at least February 2018, and Facebook comprehensively debunked it at the time. But that clearly didn't halt its spread.

The problem is that by the time a fooled user realizes it's total hookum, it's too late — they've already copy-pasted it, sharing it with their friends, allowing it to keep going viral across the social network.

That said, there is an extremely convoluted and twisted kernel of truth in here — Facebook's algorithm does make judgement about which of your friends it thinks you want to see content from, and then prioritizes them in your News Feed. And engaging with these friends' posts (and them engaging with your posts) will make them appear more frequently.

If you feel you are seeing only a limited number of posts from a limited number of people, there is a tried-and-true trick that will give you a different view of your News Feed: have it show you the "Most Recent" posts rather than its default, "Top Stories."

To do this on the desktop click on "News Feed" in the left-hand column and then on "Most Recent."

This view of the News Feed is harder to find on the mobile app. First click on the "three lines" symbol (next to the notifications bell symbol). Then click on "See More" then on "Most Recent."

But the "facts" this hoax claims, and its purported fix? Dead wrong.

BLOGGER'S TWO CENTS. OK then! I would have completely ignored this bogus thing, except that in the last two days, two of my Facebook friends have copied and pasted the "hold your finger down" version, along with "This REALLY WORKS!!" AND "Four of my friends told me this works!!" These are not people who write in this style - in fact they are published writers - so it's obvious to me they DIDN'T WRITE IT!!

Any time anything is copied and pasted in this way, it means something funny is going on, or something not-so-funny. "Viral" things that turn out to be completely bogus make me angry. It dismays me when I see otherwise intelligent people falling for something so completely lame. It highlights the "I saw it on the internet, therefore it must be true" mentality that is still going around among people who seem to have powers of discernment. Perhaps they WANT it to be true (while we're using all caps), but that doesn't mean it is. 

When you get this sent to you or see it posted and it's from a friend, it's a knee-jerk reaction to believe it, because your Facebook friend who would NEVER delude you is sending it. That person conveniently ignores the clunky, exclamation-point-ridden style which screams "cut and paste", and the ludicrous repetition which means someone has glommed together a couple of the many versions of it without editing. This one randomly claims "four different people" have had good results with it, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. . . (And I am so glad these were four "different" people, not four of the same person.)

I will perhaps believe these things - perhaps - if I see them written in that person's OWN voice and in their OWN writing style. (I just can't get off this all-caps thing!). If they then tell me what their personal experience has been with this method to "bypass the system", well then - 

Yesterday a Facebook friend posted another version of this (and there are always overlapping versions going around just to muddy the waters), and was debunked by discerning friends. Today, another friend (a writer friend) posted this:

All right. Four different people have told me this genuinely works and I miss seeing a lot of my friends posts. So I’m gonna give it a try. I heard you do have to comment and some say you don’t ?? What gives ?
Yes Adding bypass It work It WORKS!! I have a whole new news feed. I’m seeing posts from people I haven’t seen in years.
Here’s how to bypass the system FB now has in place that limits posts on your news feed. I
Their new algorithm chooses the same few people - about 25 - who will read your posts. Therefore,
Hold your finger down anywhere in this post and "copy" will pop up. Click "copy". Then go your page, start a new post and put your finger anywhere in the blank field. "Paste" will pop up and click paste.
This will bypass the system.
Thank you It WORKS!! I have a whole new news feed. I’m seeing posts from people I haven’t seen in years.

Can I pick this apart? Would a professional writer say "friends posts"? Then there is "some say you don't?? What gives?" This is NOT her writing. Definitely not. Nor is this: "Yes. Adding bypass It works It WORKS!! Come on, people, that is nuts."

I might believe it, perhaps, if someone posted, "I saw this thing about bypassing the Facebook algorithm and decided to give it a try," with personal results. Which would be exactly nothing.

People say, "Hey, it does no harm." Yes it does. It leads me around by the nose, it deludes me, and I hate that. As with fake news, I no longer know what to believe. What a waste of energy, and what a phony and disappointing vibe to get from a Facebook friend.

A long time ago I got a "questionnaire" I had to publicly fill out, all about the color of my panties, my bra size, how I behave when drunk, how many men I've had, etc. It was all in the name of "breast cancer awareness". This was nowhere near the date for that day and turned out to be a complete hoax designed to embarrass people, including me (and it was sent by a close friend!). But if you refused to take it, people were hurt, angry and edged away from you, or even unfriended you for "not caring about breast cancer". At very least, you were chided for being a poor sport for criticizing something that was all in good fun and completely harmless.

I care about breast cancer, but what I don't care about are bogus posts meant to humiliate me in public and blur the line between genuine information and absolute dreck. This truly is a life-and-death matter, and meaningless questionnaires are of no use, cause confusion and even do harm. But a number of people claimed it actually DID "raise awareness" of breast cancer, meaning women all ran to have a completely unnecessary mammogram, or just said, "OH! I had no idea there was such a thing as breast cancer. I'm so glad I'm aware."

Meantime, let's say it all together:

Yes Adding bypass It work It WORKS!! It's just that the university professor who cut and pasted the message was having an off day.

"My doll's eyes are MOVING!": the video that rocked the internet

Why is this video so significant? I'll tell you why. It isn't. But unlike most of my YouTube videos, which garner somewhere between one and ten views, this one got 18,500 (and counting - every day that I check, it's higher).

It has long been my belief that there's something "off" with YouTube's view-counting system. Weirdly, it's skewed in favor of those who get the most views. Multi-millions and even BILLIONS of views are now possible for monetized channels. Meantime, little old me gets a handful, if that. Sometimes if I look on my video manager, the number of views is wildly different than what shows up on my page.

So what is going on? And does YouTube care? All I know is, every once in a while something happens on my channel that is WAY weird.

Awhile ago, someone named LaurenZside https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeBnbqt4VRhotq2TQjkIi2A liked one of my videos - well, liked it, or thought it was weird. (It was.) It was this one:

In this one, the trolls do absolutely nothing. The thing is, I think people assume I am a little old lady who is so demented, she thinks the trolls ARE doing something - not to mention talking to her and voting in the latest Federal election. They don't get that this is supposed to be absurd and crazy BECAUSE they don't do anything.

LaurenZside is very popular, though I am not sure what she does. Probably gaming, if I knew what THAT was. She has lots of fans, most of whom seem to be young girls. Their thumbnails are unicorns and rainbows and such. Soon, I was getting hundreds of views for this video, not to mention comments. People kept saying they "came from LaurenZ". I did finally find the clip she posted in which she shows a few seconds of it. She must have posted a link to it or something.

That's cool, it's kind of fun, and it doesn't really matter what LaurenZ or her fans think of me, so long as they are entertained by this. 

But wait, there's more: "My Doll's Eyes are MOVING!" was made as a lark a very long time ago when I had a VERY brief fling with reborn dolls. I was too cheap to buy real ones, so got some fairly convincing knockoffs from eBay for about 30 bucks. Nobody really watched it, the usual scattering, and a very few comments saying the doll's eyes were NOT moving, that the effect was from shaking the camera, which is probably true. Then: KA-BOOM! 18,500 views, all at once it seemed.

The only other time this happened was when a short video of the family singing Happy Birthday to Ryan went nuts. Not exactly viral, but over 80,500, and for why? It's cute, yes, but most of my stuff is mighty cute, isn't it?

When I finally tracked down the LaurenZ video, I realized the "My Doll's Eyes are MOVING!" video was also mentioned, and a tiny clip included, even with my voice in it!  This explained the (for me) avalanche of views, which wouldn't be a blip on most YouTubers' radar. But fun for me, and even funner reading the comments. Everyone seems to be good-natured and willing to enter the spirit of the thing, even while INSISTING it's just the camera shaking (which it is).

Relevant passages are at  1:58 and 7:58. I have just taken a video of HER video showing MY video, and I want to see if they cancel each other out (perhaps a self-erasing video?) or disappear into a vortex of immeasurable depth and terror.

Hiking in Hawaii

SOLVED: the mystery of the Narwhal!

                                               The mystery revealed!

I WILL fit in this box.

The view

Curling with kitty

               What a man won't do for his cat.

Ghost owl

Corset Queens: a Victorian gallery

Catfight!!

       Go full-screen, you've got to hear that "meow"!

Cat Drag Race

Elizabeth Holmes: time's up

                                       Time's up.

I WANT THIS TROLL!

I. Want. This. Troll.

Don't ever start a collection, of anything, or this will happen.

What happened was - I don't know if I want to go back that far! Let's say I had a troll collection already, but somehow it was never complete. I felt guilty about every purchase I made, since we're on a very modest budget all the time.

AND THEN.

And then, today, rummaging in my wallet for my bus pass, I spied - a cheque. It had my name on it. I had almost forgotten I had it! And it had a tasty amount on it, too, very tasty.

The Canada Council for the Arts had sent it to me, not for a specific work but for contributing to "the arts" through publishing three novels and writing approximately 300 book reviews and over a thousand newspaper columns over a substantial period of time.

Pay.

I don't get pay from too many other sources. It also delighted me because it easily covered ALL my trolls, most of them costing five bucks and none of them more than forty (most of that being postage and handling).

I couldn't think of anything more apt than covering the cost of all my trolls with my Canada Council cheque. But do you realize what this means??

That's right. We're square, and I can once more feel guilty lusting after new trolls, looking on PicClick (an eBay search site) late into the night. My last "big guy" was most unusual, looked brand new which he couldn't be, and had a totally different configuration, as if made by another company. The troll world is odd and full of anomalies and huge gaps in information. I assumed however that he would be my last "big guy" and that if I got anything else, it would be a small Wishnik, simply because I didn't HAVE any Wishniks and it made a hole in my collection.

But I don't like Wishniks. I tried to like them. Their bulging eyes were pretty much their only outstanding feature. Most of them were old and the worse for wear, with sad clumps of hair coming away from the scalp. Some had no hair at all. The larger ones had hideous flat, elongated heads with huge ears and evil faces. No charm at all.

Wishniks were a direct knockoff of Dam trolls, which are still the gold standard for collectors, mainly because there are just more of them, at different price ranges, different manufacturing dates, and with vastly different designs. Wishniks are just, well, Wishniks. The ad that used to run when I was a kid irritated me: "Just let a Wish-nik/Let you come smi-ling through." They have double horseshoes engraved on the bottoms of their feet. 

Plus they just cost too damn much, $40.00 or more for a small troll in so-so repair.

Whether I get this "big guy" troll or not is undecided. There were a ton of photos on the eBay page, which was nice because sometimes you only get one grainy one, so I was able to make this wonderful animation. Often when I finally make my move, the troll is gone. Or I suddenly change direction and decide that I hate that troll and want something else.

THAT troll.

Post-mortem. Sigh. It happened again. Somebody bought that troll. That troll that was far too expensive for me, anyway. This is what happens when you start a collection. And the weird thing is, I've never collected anything in my life before!

Now I know why.

Horse joy: kicking up his heels

Twirly girls

Glory be to Dog, Part 2

                                   Fluffdog 2

I don't know if this is a gag or not

Of all the food abominations I have ever seen - and I consider myself an afficionado - this has to be the most grotesque. "Salad" takes on a meaning never even thought of before when you stuff a prune with cottage cheese and ram it into a doughnut. And serve it with mayonnaise.

I suspect a gag recipe here (speaking of gagging!), in part because it's just so extreme, and also because it stretches the idea of "salad" to the point of snapping. This was something they did a lot in those days. Usually it was anything encased in jello. The idea of the "manly" salad was also prevalent, with men chiding their wives that their salads were too "sissy".

Another giveaway is the spelling of "doughnut". "Donut" didn't come around until much more recently. It, too, is an abomination. The "serve with mayonnaise" seems to top it. But you never know! There used to be something called a prune Danish, and it actually had prunes in it. Why not just pour Ex-Lax all over your "donut" and EAT it?

The other thing  I saw was an "ad" for Mickey Rooney's Potato Fantasy Restaurant, which turned out to be totally bogus. Totally, but it had me going there for a minute. No salads, no prunes, just a lot of potatoes.

Elizabeth Holmes: She Who Does Not Blink

I honestly don't know if I posted this video before. But if I don't know, how can YOU know? I've been on a bender lately with this celebrated sociopath/bloodsucker, mainly because her face in slow motion reveals everything about her. The smile in this gif/video (enhanced by recording it off my computer monitor with my old cam-corder) looks manic, if not maniacal, with the utter self-assurance and grandiosity of one convinced of her own immortality. 

The smile just goes on and on, unblinking, but when she DOES blink it's just as weird. It's a sort of Disney blink, the head turning minutely to one side and the curly black artificial lashes slowly fanning the air. It reminds me of those ballet-dancing ostriches in Fantasia. In fact, an ostrich would probably have more intelligence than this so-called genius. Guile she has, and cunning, but both of these are traits that cats have in abundance. And they also do that slow, predatory eye-blink that mesmerizes us so much, hypnotizing people into handing her $9 billion and breaking every regulation in the book.

Baby cat, baby horse, baby human. . .

I love these tiny videos with animals in them, but why is it always "baby horse", "baby cow", "baby dog", "baby cat"? Do people really not know the names of these things? There is much on the internet which seems badly translated from some unknown language. 

A peanut butter sandwich made with jam

This adorable gif of the adorable Emmy, as in emmymadeinjapan,was going to be a short YouTube video until I flew into a panic. Usually I know when I'm going to violate copyright, and stay well away from it. Now I'm not so sure. I think a gif is OK (isn't it? Especially on a blog no one reads.)

The whole reason for this paranoia is the "strike" against my account I got from "violating community standards of decency" with my Eadweard Muybridge animation, the same animation that appeared on several other videos which were allowed to stand. The video consisted of seven or eight frames of nude women, mostly shown from the back, with one woman playfully dumping a bucket of water over the other's head. I was warned that this was considered filthy pornography, and if I got two more strikes against my account, I was "out". I mean, now and forever.

So now I'm freaked out.

Never mind the jaw-dropping and even horrifying stuff I see on YouTube now, including a recent one about a woman who "FUCKS A DOG!" (and this news screamed at us by some millennial loser). Horrible, horrible stuff, because it's ugly. It's cheap and doesn't accomplish anything. I'd rather watch a person shit. I don't look for others of this genre and don't want to find them, but I am sure there are  some that are a thousand times more explicit than my two little frollicking Muybridge girls.

So at least we get this gif, this very cute snippet of Emmy looking at her peanut  butter sandwich seven times. I'm not sure why seven, but it's adorable. Most of her stuff is quite watchable and relaxing. I like her respect for other cultures, other eras, and other ways. She featured a series on prison recipes, real ones I mean, from  a cookbook written by a former inmate. The treatment was not mocking in any way ("Boy, all those guys in the slammer, they must get horny as hell" - I can just see it), or satirical or even funny, but respectfully fascinated at how people make do with limited resources. That's how Emmy approaches things. No spit-takes, no mugging (though she does put on funny accents once in a while and does a split-second "bit" at the very end), no screaming into the camera with her face half an inch away from the lens.

In other words, no cheap tricks. 

I hope this is the new YouTube, but I fear not. She's considered old school now. YouTube has been hijacked by the gamers, loud millennial slackers with the IQ of a gnat. Almost all of them are young males who experienced failure to launch, and sit home alone in their Mom's basement all day, perpetually playing  video games and "fapping" to pictures of their latest female android superhero. 

Nearly-identical vintage toys: compare and contrast

It strikes me, after the fact, that I need to include a BIT of explanation with these ads rather than just throwing them at you. Unlike me, you may not remember them. These are vintage ads for kids' toys that are practically interchangeable. I don't know if Digger the Dog came ahead of Gaylord, but both toys had very catchy jingles. Digger had an adenoidal little boy who, while almost unintelligible, was mighty cute. The men who wrote these (for they were almost surely men) were geniuses in their own small way, for their little ditties plied drill-bits into our brains that screw with our memory to this day.

As a child, I wanted a horse so badly that I'd "ride" anything. I would hang upside down from the railing of a gospel church door and pretend it was a horse. I would pop the legs off one of those tin TV trays, stand inside the legs, and pretend to gallop around. Never did I get anything as impressive as Marvel the Mustang or Blaze, which would probably cost more than most families were willing to pony up.

The pooping dog was not something I experienced or wanted, not being a Barbie afficionado. In my day, it would have been considered horrific, since back than nobody pooped. I mean nobody, not even dogs.

These have only the fact that they're robots in common, but they're cool. Why am I bothered by the thumbnail in the bottom one? Does it remind me of a TNT blast, or something more ominous?

In any case, I remember most of these ads, particularly Digger the Dog and Gaylord, who seemed to be almost the same product. Likewise Marvel the Mustang (who came with the unforgettable slogan, "What horse do?") and Blaze, though unlike Marvel, he didn't really go anywhere. Though boy and horse seemed to be barreling along, it was obvious that only the background was moving, while Blaze just bounced up and down in one spot like those awful horsey-things mounted on springs. Marvel, on the other hand, kind of shuffled along, front and back legs stuck out awkwardly like diagonal table legs. No winding. No batteries. But no horse ever "did" like that. 

(Wasn't there a Romper Room caterpillar that you rode that was something like that? Let me think. . .) 

The pooping dog is quite a bit after my time, but I do remember the stir it caused when Barbie came out with Tanner. The idea was repeated some time in the '80s (?) with Pax, my Poopin' Pup, a much fuzzier, cuter dog who nevertheless produced the same stuff. Put it in one end, and it comes out the other.

SPECIAL BONUS AD! This one may only faintly resemble Marvel the Mustang and Blaze, but it's a mechanical horse, what the hell! This one DOES take batteries. What horse do? This one does.

POST-PONY: Sometimes, it just all comes together. Looking for that Romper Room riding caterpillar (which turned out to be Inchworm, with a jingle too dreadful to repeat here), I found - a riding DOG, so much like a cross between Digger the Dog and Gaylord that it almost made my hair stand on end! Well, not quite. But it's interesting.

Elizabeth Holmes: Blah, blah, blah

Glyptodon!

Disco glyptodons

Coloring pages

Glypto Do's and Don'ts

GIFs

Glyptodon (from Greek for "grooved or carved tooth" – Greek γλυπτός sculptured + ὀδοντ-, ὀδούς tooth) was a genus of large, armored mammals of the subfamily Glyptodontinae (glyptodonts or glyptodontines) – relatives of armadillos – that lived during the Pleistocene epoch. It was roughly the same size and weight as a Volkswagen Beetle, though flatter in shape. With its rounded, bony shell and squat limbs, it superficially resembled a turtle, and the much earlier dinosaurian ankylosaur – providing an example of the convergent evolution of unrelated lineages into similar forms. In 2016 an analysis of Doedicurus mtDNA found it was, in fact, nested within the modern armadillos as the sister group of a clade consisting of Chlamyphorinae and  For this reason, glyptodonts and all armadillos but Dasypus were relocated to a new family, Chlamyphoridae.

Glyptodon Temporal range: Pleistocene (Uquian-Lujanian) ~2.500–0.011 Ma  PreЄ Є O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓
Fossil specimen at the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Superorder:	Xenarthra
Order:	Cingulata
Family:	Chlamyphoridae
Subfamily:	†Glyptodontinae
Genus:	†Glyptodon[1] Owen, 1839
Species
G. clavipes Owen, 1839 (type) G. elongatus Burmeister, 1866 G. euphractus Lund, 1839 G. munizi Ameghino, 1881 G. petaliferus Cope, 1888[2] G. reticulatus Owen, 1845 G. rivapacis Hay, 1923[3]

GLYPTO-BONUS: One more animatronic/plug-in Glyptodon!

Elizabeth Holmes demonstrates her product

Which is exactly nothing.

Autochrome 2

Autochrome

Do you need to feel better today?

A YouTube classic which deserves to be seen again. What baffles me is how many people protest in the comments section about how "cruel" this is, about how badly-injured the precious little ducklings were. Pshah! These are rolling fluffballs whose downy little butts are barely touching the pavement. Feathered tumbleweeds. They quickly right themselves and go toddling off  after Mom. That's the whole point of the thing.

Elizabeth Holmes: up to her elbows

In what, you may ask? Why, in human blood. For this is the currency Elizabeth Holmes deals in.

These nanoclips from some of the more drooly videos about Holmes (prior to 2016, when she was finally assassinated by the truth) only add to my astonishment at the lengths she would go to in order to appear sincere. Here she is in a lab coat - and may I say, after reading Bad Blood by John Carreyrou, this woman has never been within ten miles of such a thing - earnestly at work purifying blood samples  and saving humanity at the same time. For that is what she lives for.

The fact that someone at Theranos would set up a dummy lab so that this dummy of a woman could pretend to be working in it isn't so surprising. What surprises me is how many people gushed over her, fawned, crowned her "the next Steve Jobs" (as if the first one wasn't  bad enough. Wasn't Jobs known for stealing other people's ideas?)

At any rate, I want to get off this obsession now and on to a more palatable one. But I just had to  share this with you. Note her robotic movements, android face, and other less-than-human features. It scares the hell out of me, it does. Think of it. She nearly had our blood.

Astonishing power