A research project, not a complaint box.
Across forums and support threads, thousands of legitimate Facebook creators describe the same experience: a Page falsely flagged for “Inauthentic Engagement,” followed by lost recommendations, demonetization, and frozen payouts. The reports are real but fragmented — which makes each one easy to dismiss. This project consolidates them into a single, consistent, verifiable record so the scale of the issue can be measured and shown.
Our credibility is the whole asset. We document with evidence and neutral language. We don’t attack, speculate, or inflate — because aggregated, verifiable data is far harder to dismiss than anger.
What we’re measuring
Each verified report captures the shape of an enforcement action: the country and size of the Page, which restrictions were applied, when they began, the financial impact, and a set of measurable context questions. Together these answer the questions Meta, journalists, and researchers actually ask — how widespread is this, who does it hit, how long does it last, and how often does it resolve.
How verification works
Every submission enters a moderation queue and moves through clearly defined states:
- Pending verification — received, awaiting review.
- Verified — reviewed for consistency and published in anonymized form.
- Needs more information — returned for clarification.
- Duplicate — already recorded under another case.
- Rejected — insufficient or inconsistent to include.
Only Verified reports appear in the public registry and the aggregate data. Reports are verified for internal consistency, not independently audited — a distinction we state plainly wherever figures appear.
Privacy commitments
Contributors include people with large audiences and real businesses. Contributing must never expose them. So:
- Reports are anonymous by default — a public alias is optional, a real name is never required.
- We never request passwords, two-factor codes, Page or Business Manager access, logins, or payment details.
- Page URLs, contact emails, and uploaded evidence are kept private and used only for moderation — never published.
- Only anonymized, aggregated figures are made public.
- No creator is ever identified publicly without explicit permission.
Frequently asked questions
Why should I submit if I already opened a support ticket?
Individual tickets are handled in isolation and are easy to overlook. A documented body of thousands of consistent cases demonstrates a pattern — the kind of evidence that gets taken seriously by journalists, researchers, and platform policy teams.
Is this affiliated with Meta or Facebook?
No. This is an independent, community-run project. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Meta Platforms, Inc. The names “Facebook” and “Meta” are used only to describe the platform being documented.
Will my Page name or URL be published?
No. Those fields are stored privately for moderation only. The public registry shows anonymized fields — country, restriction type, follower band, days open, and recovery status.
What do you do with the data?
We publish anonymized, aggregated findings and prepare them for creators, journalists, creator organizations, and — through professional channels — platform and policy contacts. The goal is credible evidence, not a single viral moment.
Can this force Meta to reverse my restriction?
No one can promise that. This project builds evidence; it isn’t a support channel or a legal service, and nothing here is legal advice. Aggregated evidence improves the odds a systemic issue is recognized — it doesn’t guarantee any individual outcome.
Why ask whether I ever bought followers or ran ads?
Because measurable context makes the dataset credible. If the overwhelming majority of affected creators never bought followers, that directly undercuts the “inauthentic engagement” label — and that’s a finding worth documenting.