Our standards and values: a trusted-flagging bar we hold by choice
We have written our own standard for how a responsible flagging and research body should behave. It is modelled on the principles behind the EU Digital Services Act and its trusted-flagger regime, but it is voluntary and self-adopted. We meet the bar because we choose to, not because a law compels us to.
A voluntary code, inspired by the DSA
The Digital Services Act sets out what Europe expects of a "trusted flagger": expertise, independence, diligence and accuracy. We are not applying for that legal status. Instead we have taken those same expectations and turned them into a public set of standards and values that govern everything we publish and every notice we send to a platform.
Self-adopted
This standard binds us because we have published it, not because a regulator granted us anything. If we breach it, hold us to it.
Principle-aligned
It mirrors the DSA's trusted-flagger criteria and notice-and-action logic, so platforms and partners recognise the shape of how we work.
Independent
No platform we assess funds us, directs us or holds equity in us. Our conclusions are ours alone.
Public
The standard, the method and the outcomes are open, so our work can be cited, challenged or corrected by anyone.
The four commitments every flag must meet
Before anything is published or reported to a platform or an authority, it must satisfy all four of these. They are the values a trusted-flagging body should be judged on.
Expertise
Findings are produced by reviewers with genuine subject-matter competence in online child safety, trafficking indicators and platform abuse - not by volume or by bots.
Independence
We act in the public interest only. No commercial, political or platform interest decides what we look at or what we conclude.
Diligence
Every material claim is corroborated by at least two independent, dated, verifiable sources before it becomes a finding or a flag.
Accuracy & objectivity
We separate verified fact from observed pattern from unresolved question, and we publish that distinction plainly. We do not overstate.
What we treat as urgent, above all else
Not every concern carries the same weight. Where there is a credible indicator of the harms below, our standards require expedited handling - fastest review, direct referral to the competent authority, and no delay for editorial process.
What a notice from us always contains
A flag is only useful if the receiving platform or authority can act on it without guessing. Modelled on DSA notice-and-action logic, every notice we send follows the same structure.
Precise location
The exact account, URL, room, message or transaction - with timestamps - so the recipient can find it, not hunt for it.
Clear reasoning
Which specific harm or rule is engaged, and why the evidence supports it. No vague "this looks bad" notices.
Good-faith declaration
A statement that the notice is accurate and submitted in good faith, with a named, accountable reviewer behind it.
Traceable evidence
A time-stamped evidence chain that can be re-walked end to end, so any claim can be verified or challenged later.
Transparency, and the rights of everyone we name
A flagging body with no accountability is just an accuser. Our standards bind us to publish what we do and to protect the rights of the people and platforms we assess.
Annual transparency report
We publish how many notices we sent, to whom, on what grounds, and how often our flags were upheld - including our own error rate.
Right of reply
Any platform we assess receives the draft and evidence with a fixed window to respond. Their response is published unedited alongside our finding.
No vigilantism
We never publish an individual's home address, contact details or identifying data. Suspected crime is referred to the proper authority, not the crowd.
Data protection by default
Victim and witness information is encrypted at rest, access-logged, and released only with consent or under lawful order.
Open to challenge
Any finding or flag can be contested with new evidence. The challenge process, its timeline and its outcome are public.
Correct on the record
When we get something wrong, we correct it visibly and promptly, and we log the correction rather than quietly editing it away.
What these standards are not
We want to be precise about the limits of our role, because overclaiming would itself breach our values.
Not a regulator
We have no statutory powers. We cannot compel a platform to do anything, impose penalties, or make binding legal determinations.
Not a designated trusted flagger
We are not awarded "trusted flagger" status under the EU Digital Services Act or any equivalent law. We simply choose to work to that standard.
Not a court
Our findings are research and public-interest analysis. They are not verdicts, and they do not replace due process or law enforcement.
Think we have fallen short of our own standards?
Tell us. Every complaint about our conduct, and how we resolved it, is logged and can be reviewed. Accountability starts with us.