How Do You Report Facebook Hack
Janoc Florez
Hi!
Is it possible to send a Facebook Ads Report to S3 (or Google Drive) on a daily basis through Zapier?
I'm currently considering the possibility of having a premium account in order to do that. But it is not clear to me if this is actually possible.
Best method I would recommend is using a Google Data Studio Connector for Fb ads from Supermetrics and configure that Data Studio Report to send an automated email to you or client pulling the ad campaign reports.
It appears that Facebook has changed their API and Domo's connector no longer works. I'd recommend logging a ticket with Domo Support for their development team to investigate and update the connector.
@Tharuka , FB has many connectors. I'd try each one and select different reports. To @GrantSmith point, they change API's but I have a few now that work great. Is your connector for ads or organic posts?
Besides you submitting a ticket, which is a great idea. Have you explored the other reports? What specific data were you looking for from this report?
I changed the report to to 'Page Impressions by Age' and did return impressions value. You could aggregate to get total impressions which is what you might have been looking for from your failing report.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (from left), Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos have been in the spotlight over the market power that their giant companies have. Bertrand Guay/AFP via Getty Images hide caption
The four companies began as "scrappy underdog startups" but are now monopolies that must be restricted and regulated, the report from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel says.
"These four corporations increasingly serve as gatekeepers of commerce and communications in the digital age, and this gatekeeper power gives them enormous capacity to abuse that power," a lawyer for the subcommittee's Democratic majority said in a briefing with reporters.
The lawmakers say Congress should overhaul the laws that have let the companies grow so powerful. In particular, the report says, Congress should look at forcing "structural separations" of the companies and beefing up enforcement of existing antitrust laws.
The recommendations, if enacted, could radically change how these companies operate. They could, for example, restrict Amazon from selling its own products in its marketplace, in direct competition with sellers who depend on the platform to reach customers. Google could be banned from using the data the Android operating system collects on users and other apps to refine its products. Facebook could, theoretically, be barred from acquiring another competitor, after concerns over how it bought rivals including Instagram and WhatsApp.
While the investigation was a bipartisan effort by the subcommittee, the final report has been met by partisan division over its recommendations. The Democratic majority staff authored the report, and no Republicans have publicly endorsed it so far.
"Big tech is out to get conservatives," he said in a statement, repeating a frequent but unsupported claim by conservatives. "Unfortunately, the Democrats' partisan report ignores this fundamental problem and potential solutions and instead advances radical proposals that would refashion antitrust law in the vision of the far left."
Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., released his own suggestions for tacking tech's power., saying he did not support the report's recommendations. But he said he agreed that Big Tech has grown too big and would work with the subcommittee's Democratic leadership to find solutions.
The report is the culmination of a 16-month long investigation into some of the most valuable and influential companies in the world. Regardless of its uncertain political future and broad recommendations, the report presents a new and fairly comprehensive public database of evidence and internal documents that shed light on long-standing criticisms of Big Tech.
One lawyer for the antitrust subcommittee said one of the most eye-opening discoveries was the fear expressed by Fortune 500 companies in dealing with the tech giants, feeling dependent on their whims.
It describes sellers as "exploited" by the company's dominance: not allowed to contact shoppers directly, often limited in their ability to sell on other platforms, facing "strong-arm tactics in negotiations" and receiving either "atrocious levels of customer service" or better service for a fee.
The authors also write that Amazon profits off ideas and products developed by others, whether that's sellers on its platform, startups it considers buying or even open-source cloud-software developers.
Amazon on Tuesday published a blog post, rebutting "fallacies...at the core of regulatory spit-balling on antitrust." Without directly calling out the report, the post said: "For consumers, the result would be less choice and higher prices. Far from enhancing competition, these uninformed notions would instead reduce it."
Apple, along with Google in its Google Play store, leaves developers with little choice for reaching consumers, the report says, adding that the arrangement leaves developers at the whims of the "arbitrary" enforcement of Apple's app guidelines.
The report found that the controversial 30% commission levied by Apple and Google has resulted in price increases on consumers. Investigators say that Apple generated billions of dollars in profit from the fees, despite costing about less than $100 million to operate.
"Competition drives innovation, and innovation has always defined us at Apple," the company said. "We work tirelessly to deliver the best products to our customers, with safety and privacy at their core, and we will continue to do so."
The report quotes Facebook's own chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, and other top management describing the company's strategy of buying its rivals. In one internal communication, Zuckerberg said Facebook "can likely always just buy any competitive startups."
Facebook used data to identify possible rivals and "then acquire, copy, or kill these firms," the report says. Facebook's monopoly power "is firmly entrenched and unlikely to be eroded by competitive pressure," investigators found.
Facebook said in a statement that it "compete[s] with a wide variety of services with millions, even billions, of people using them." It added that when it comes to Instagram and WhatsApp, "a strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today. Regulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time."
The report says Google enjoys a monopoly in search and search advertising, and its dominance is protected by its own data and deals it has struck around the world to be the default search engine in many browsers and devices. "No alternative search engine serves as a substitute," investigators said.
Between October and November 2023, Human Rights Watch documented over 1,050 takedowns and other suppression of content Instagram and Facebook that had been posted by Palestinians and their supporters, including about human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch publicly solicited cases of any type of online censorship and of any type of viewpoints related to Israel and Palestine. Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel. The documented cases include content originating from over 60 countries around the world, primarily in English, all of peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways. This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship. Hundreds of people continued to report censorship after Human Rights Watch completed its analysis for this report, meaning that the total number of cases Human Rights Watch received greatly exceeded 1,050.
This report builds on and complements years of research, documentation, and advocacy by Palestinian, regional, and international human rights and digital rights organizations, in particular 7amleh, the Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, and Access Now.
In addition, in over 300 cases documented by Human Rights Watch, users reported and provided evidence of being unable to appeal the restriction on their account to the platform, which left the user unable to report possible platform violations and without any access to an effective remedy.
Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies have a responsibility to avoid infringing on human rights, identify and address the human rights impacts of their operations, and provide meaningful access to a remedy to those whose rights they abused. For social media companies, including Meta, this responsibility includes aligning their content moderation policies and practices with international human rights standards, ensuring that decisions to take down content are transparent and not overly broad or biased, and enforcing their policies consistently.
Human Rights Watch solicited cases of any type of online censorship and of any type of viewpoint related to Israel and Palestine. Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 cases documented involved examples of online censorship and suppression of content in support of Palestine, while one case contained an example of removal of content in support of Israel.[2] This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship.
The researchers reviewed all 1,285 reports of online censorship received via email by November 28, 2023, either in response to our solicitation or spontaneously submitted. We excluded cases in which there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of censorship or that or that did not include content about Israel or Palestine. We also screened evidence for any speech that could be considered incitement to violence, discrimination, or hostility by evaluating the content of the post, the context around the post (other comments, media, etc.) and additional information provided by the person who reported the censorship, and notifications from Meta. The researchers used a combination of evidence provided by the user including screenshots and background material in the email and publicly available information to assess whether the claim of unjustified restrictions on their content or account by Meta was substantiated. If the researchers did not have enough information to fully assess the context of the post to confirm that the content was peaceful support for Palestine or Palestinians, we excluded the case.
c80f0f1006