Fake Video Claiming 'coup in France' Goes Viral
Posted19 days agoActive19 days ago
france24.comNewsstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
MisinformationSocial MediaFake News
Key topics
Misinformation
Social Media
Fake News
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
32s
Peak period
5
0-1h
Avg / period
5
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 17, 2025 at 1:01 PM EST
19 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 17, 2025 at 1:01 PM EST
32s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 17, 2025 at 1:28 PM EST
19 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46303071Type: storyLast synced: 12/17/2025, 6:05:18 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Maybe those rules should be changed
Social media moderation has to balance "engagement" with the potential for bad PR or liability for the company. It turns out that content that is against the rules is also the one that generates the most engagement, so enforcing the rules as-is is bad for the bottom-line.
Thus for every piece of content that is potentially against the rules, the actual condition for removing it is whether the expected engagement potential outweighs the probability of someone rich/well-connected getting inconvenienced by it and how much inconvenience would it be. Content is only removed when the liability potential exceeds the profit potential.
At the beginning the reports were ignored because the system determined it is more profitable to stay up. I'm not sure what "his pleas to take it down" refers to, it would've likely been just his staff members flagging it with their personal accounts and those flags having very little weight. Eventually either someone managed to talk to a human and/or a letter to their legal department arrived, or the content achieving enough impressions to become a risk which caused the earlier flags to actually get reviewed by a competent human, at which point they realized what their liability was and quickly removed it.
You should expect to see an apology from their PR department soon and a promise they'll do better next time.
Anyone over there and know for sure?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45229989
On the other hand it's a bit liberating to no longer try to discriminate, and simply trust none of it.