The concept of a "view" on social media platforms has become a ubiquitous metric, touted as a measure of success and engagement. However, a closer examination reveals that this metric is often misleading, inflated, and even downright deceitful. In reality, a "view" can mean anything a platform wants it to, with little correlation to actual user engagement.

The issue is not new, but it's an important reminder that the metrics we rely on to gauge online success are often flawed. Facebook, for instance, was sued for inflating view counts in an effort to convince users to create Facebook videos. Despite this, view counts remain a dominant metric, with platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube Shorts all using their own definitions of a "view".

On social media platforms, a "view" is often counted the moment a video starts playing, even if the user immediately scrolls away. This means that every time a user scrolls through their feed, they're technically "viewing" content, even if they're not actually engaging with it. This absurdly low bar is then used to justify inflated view counts, which can be misleading for creators and advertisers alike.

Facebook, in particular, has taken a questionable approach to defining views. The platform combines multiple metrics, including video plays and photo views, into a single "view" count. This means that a user who scrolls past a photo in their feed is counted as a "view", even if they didn't actually engage with the content. The company offers creators additional metrics, such as three-second video views and one-minute video views, but these are not publicly disclosed.

X, a relatively new platform, takes a similar approach, counting every post in a user's feed as a "view" as it scrolls by. The platform's documentation on post views is vague, but its video rules are more straightforward, requiring a video to play for at least two seconds and be at least half-visible on the screen to count as a view.

The reason platforms engage in this behavior is simple: if they reported accurate view counts, their numbers would be lower, and creators might choose to post elsewhere. Advertisers might also be deterred by lower engagement numbers. By inflating view counts, platforms can create the illusion of a more active and engaged user base, attracting more creators and advertisers.

Even Netflix, a platform that once had a more robust definition of a view, has succumbed to the pressure to inflate its numbers. The company now counts a view after just two minutes of watching, a metric that is clearly not indicative of actual engagement. Other streaming services are similarly opaque about their view counting methods, making it difficult to trust the numbers they report.

The implications of this deception are far-reaching. Creators are misled into thinking their content is more popular than it actually is, while advertisers are paying for ads that may not be reaching their intended audience. Users, meanwhile, are left with a distorted view of what's popular and what's not.

In the end, it's clear that the "view" metric is broken, and it's time for a change. By recognizing the flaws in this metric and demanding more transparency from platforms, we can create a more honest and equitable online ecosystem. Until then, it's essential to remember that "views" are not what they seem – they're often just a cleverly constructed illusion.