Facebook has acknowledged four new errors in the figures it shares with advertisers and publishers
.
The "bugs" could cause companies to think users had spent longer reading news articles than they had done, and that more people had been exposed to non-paid posts than had been the case.
The alert comes two months after the firm revealed it had overestimated the average time users had watched videos.
But Facebook says none of the cases would have affected its fees.
Neither would all of the examples have worked in its favour.
One of the newly revealed flaws meant it was underreporting the percentage of users who had watched videos on its platform to their end.
Facebook makes more than 200 metrics about its site available to third parties.
The latest mistakes might appear relatively minor in nature, but one digital marketing expert said they undermined confidence in the social network.
"It certainly doesn't help when they keep having to restate metrics, especially when companies are buying ads based on that data," said Ian Maude, group development director at Be Heard.
"It adds to concerns that advertisers and agencies already have and underlines the argument that there should be some sort of independent third-party measurement system, which could give people a little bit more confidence in the numbers."
Facebook said that it planned to create a measurement council to give businesses a say in the development of future metrics, and that it had also created a new internal review process.
Some alt-right figures have suggested a switch to Gab, an alternative micro-blogging service that promises "free speech for everyone".
But other have their doubts.
"Gab just seems like a pointless echo chamber, there are enough alt-right blogs and forums," wrote one supporter of the movement in a discussion thread about the Twitter suspensions.
"The benefits of Twitter are interacting with normies, influencing discussion and getting alt-right memes trending."
A cartoon of Pepe the Frog is a commonly used symbol of the alt-right
What is the alt-right?
Members of the alt-right movement differ on many points, but are generally outspoken in their attacks on multiculturalism, globalisation and immigration.
Their targets include political correctness and feminism, and they have typically characterised themselves as being anti-establishment.
The election of Donald Trump - a presidential candidate supported by much of the alt-right - could change that.
He has appointed Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Mr Bannon was formerly executive chairman of Breitbart News, a news site that specialises in coverage of the alt-right, but does not identify itself as part of it.
That has led some to speculate about whether certain alt-right views could soon become official US policy.
Richard Spencer's last tweet - about the UK columnist Katie Hopkins - would not appear to be the cause of the ban
Among them was Richard Spencer, the president of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as being dedicated to the "identity and future of people of European descent in the United States".
The NPI's own Twitter account and that of its Radix Journal have also been barred by the platform.
Several of the accounts' recent tweets had included the word "cucks" - a term of abuse used by the alt-right to disparage opponents. It is derived from cuckold and signifies the target is in some way weak.
It is not clear, however, whether this was related to Twitter's action.
"[This] is corporate Stalinism in the sense that there is a great purge going on, and they are purging people on the basis of their views," Mr Spencer said in a video he posted to YouTube.
"I and a number of other people who just got banned were not even trolling."
He added he now planned to use Gab instead.
Mr Spencer was banned from visiting the UK earlier this year by the then Home Secretary Theresa May, who suggested his views would "foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence".
USA Today identified four other high-profile alt-right figures who had also been suspended.
The Southern Poverty Law Center - an Alabama-based anti-hate group - welcomed the news.
However, it permanently banned Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos in July, when it said he had helped incite abuse against the actress Leslie Jones.
Facebook Just Accidentally 'Killed' a Bunch of People, Including Zuck
The error on Friday caused the social network to show a memorial banner on user profiles for people who were still alive.
Users posted status updates to reassure friends and family they were not dead, despite Facebook's message.
"This was a terrible error that we have now fixed," a Facebook spokesperson said. "We are very sorry that this happened."
The
message, intended for "memorialised profiles", erroneously appeared on
the profile pages of a large number of users - including Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg.
"We hope people who love Mark will find comfort
in the things other share to remember and celebrate his life," the
banner on his page read.
Both technology reporters and Facebook users, however, saw a humorous side to the story.
"Why Is Facebook Saying I'm Dead?" asked the New York Times' Katie Rogers. "At first, I was indignant. I was definitely not dead. (Was I? It had been a long week.)"
"Facebook is capping one of the longest weeks in American history by telling everyone that they are dead," quipped The Verge, a technology website, in reference to the presidential election.
The memorial feature was introduced by Facebook in 2015 after a number of high-profile cases where family wanted to access the social accounts of deceased loved ones.
User
can opt to have their account turn into a memorial page upon their
death, where Facebook contacts can leave message and share memories.
An alternative option is to have your account deleted after your death.
Pages appeared to be back to normal shortly after the glitch was discovered, but that didn't stop Twitter from going wild.
Taxi-hailing firm Uber has agreed to pay $100m (£70m) to settle a legal action over whether drivers should be classified as employees or independent contractors.
Drivers had argued that they should be classed as employees, entitling them to claim expenses and other rights.
The decision to settle will come as a relief to Uber and others in the on-demand economy who use contractors.
But critics will be disappointed the case is not going to trial.
In a blog post, Uber boss Travis Kalanick said he was pleased with the settlement.
"Drivers value their independence - the freedom to push a button rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to drive most of the week or for just a few hours," he said.
But he acknowledged: "We haven't always done a good job working with drivers.
"It's time to change."
Grievances
Uber has agreed to some changes in its business practices, including a better policy explaining why it was terminating drivers' contracts.
It also said that it would help create a drivers' association in California and Massachusetts - where the actions were brought - that would act in a similar way to a union and be able to bring grievances to management's attention.
Some 450,000 drivers use the Uber app each month in the US, according to Uber.
One of the lawyers for the drivers, Shannon Liss-Riordan, said there would be disappointment that the case was not now going to trial but added that there was a "significant risk of losing" if the case moved forward.
This is partly because a federal appeals court had recently agreed to review an order allowing Uber drivers to sue as a group.
The settlement does not prevent future court, or US labour bodies, classing Uber drivers as employees, Ms Liss-Riordan added.
Out of the $100m proposed payment, $84m will go to drivers.
The deal must now be approved by US District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco.
The firm released its latest transparency report this week
Apple is consistently more compliant with US requests for access to users' information than with the rest of the world on average, it has emerged.
Its own figures showed that, in 2015, Apple released data on users' devices to US authorities 80% of the time, compared to 55% when it came to the UK.
That compared to a global average of nearly 60%, Apple's data showed.
A security expert said it was "deeply frustrating" for law enforcement agencies.
Apple released its latest transparency report on Monday to complement previous releases going back as far as 2013.
It published the numbers of device requests it received - those from law enforcement for contact information and other data.
Separately, it released data on account requests - those from government agencies for account details, including iTunes and iCloud account information.
Data release
The BBC's analysis has revealed that, similar to in 2015, the UK was below the global average and the US above it for both types of request in each of the previous years for which there were comparable data.
Among the five countries that regularly submitted a large number of device requests - more than 2,000 per year - the US was the only country to consistently receive Apple customer information a greater-than-average proportion of the time. Singapore was also below the average in each of the three years.
Apple's figures showed that, on average, it was unable to release data for 33% of account requests from across the world in 2015. In the US, the rate was 18% and, in the UK, 40%. A similar picture emerged in 2014. A comparison of account requests in 2013 was not possible because Apple did not release exact figures for the US for that year.
The US and the UK were the only countries to make more than 300 account requests per year. Apple's figures showed a lesser propensity to release information to UK authorities The consistently lower proportion of successful requests from the UK could be because Britain is seen as "less protective of personal privacy" than the US, said Prof Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey.
The security expert, who advises Europol and who has also advised GCHQ in the past, said: "Whatever the reason, it is a deeply frustrating situation for law enforcement agencies."
Despite Apple's presence in many countries outside the US, he added that it may also feel less duty bound to comply with requests from foreign governments.
'Government abuse'
According to Apple's report, the majority of device requests were in cases of lost or stolen phones and the BBC understands that some of the differences between countries were dependent on the differing approaches of national police forces towards phone theft.
The BBC also understands that some of the unsuccessful account requests were down to the company not holding any information, rather than resisting law enforcement efforts.
The firm declined to comment when contacted by the BBC.
On Monday, Blackberry's chief executive John Chen said the firm would comply with law enforcement but would prevent "government abuse of invading citizen's privacy".
He spoke in response to reports that Canadian police could intercept and read encrypted messages sent using Blackberry phones. Mr Chen said the firm "stood by [its] lawful access principles".
Police said the suspected drone had struck an inbound Airbus A320, similar to this one
A plane approaching Heathrow Airport is believed to have hit a drone before it landed safely, the Metropolitan Police has said.
The British Airways flight from Geneva was hit as it approached the London airport at about 12:50 BST with 132 passengers and five crew on board.
After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.
Aviation police based at Heathrow have launched an investigation.
Police said no arrests have been made.
If confirmed, it is believed to be the first incident of its kind in the UK.
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
The airline will give the police "every assistance with their investigation", the spokesman added.
A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones close to airports, and anyone flouting the rules can face "severe penalties, including imprisonment".
Steve Landells, from the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said it had been "only a matter of time before we had a drone strike". He called for greater enforcement of existing rules.
Are drones dangerous or harmless fun?
Drones pose 'real threat' to civil aviation
Analysis
Leo Kelion, Technology editor
Flying a drone near an airport can already be punished with up to five years in prison, and rules also forbid taking them above 400ft (122m) or near buildings and crowds of people.
But the latest incident will only add to the pressure for further steps to be taken.
The US recently introduced a compulsory registration scheme so any drone recovered from an accident can be traced back to its owner.
In addition, officials could make it mandatory for drones to run geo-fencing software - that would prevent them flying in restricted areas.
The Department for Transport has promised to publish a strategy for unmanned aircraft this year.
And pilots have also called for the DoT to fund tests into what would happen if a drone got sucked into an engine or crashed into a plane's windscreen.
Last month, the British Airline Pilots Association noted that while the threat of bird strikes had been well researched there was little data about how much damage a drone could cause a plane.
'Severe penalties'
The incident follows a warning earlier this year by the head of the International Air Transport Association that drones flown by the general public are "a real and growing threat" to civilian aircraft.
Tony Tyler called for drone regulations to be put in place before any serious accidents occur.
The UK Air Proximity Board - which investigates near-miss incidents in UK airspace - said there have been a number of serious near-misses at UK airports involving drones.
Category A incidents - the most serious - were reported at Stansted, Heathrow, London City and Manchester airports last year.
US cinema chain AMC has reversed a controversial plan to let customers use their mobile phones during films in some venues.
AMC chief executive Adam Aron had suggested the idea might encourage so-called millennials to visit the cinema.
But the plan was badly received on social media, where cinema-goers bombarded AMC with messages.
"We have heard loud and clear that this is a concept our audience does not want," the company said in a statement.
AMC operates almost 400 cinemas in the United States, with more than 5,000 screens. The chain also has a UK multi-screen complex in Manchester.
While many cinemas display messages before films asking people to switch off their mobile devices, Mr Aron had suggested that allowing mobile phone use during a film might appeal to young adults.
"When you tell a 22-year-old to turn off the phone, don't ruin the movie, they hear please cut off your left arm above the elbow," he had explained in an interview with Variety magazine.
But the cinema chain has now admitted the idea had not gone down well with audiences.
"In this age of social media, we get feedback from you almost instantaneously," it said in a statement.
"This is an idea we have relegated to the cutting room floor... there will be no texting allowed in any of the auditoriums at AMC Theatres."
Delighted film fans welcomed the news online.
"Bravo for making the right decision," said one tweeter called Kristin.
"Thank you so much. I love you guys for this," added Shavonne.
Others remained critical of AMC.
"The idea shouldn't have been floated publicly in the first place, though. It was a horrible idea from the beginning," tweeted Geoff.
