What we found
An FTC consumer alert published 23 September 2026 describes a situation where a person has reported an intimate photo or video shared without their consent, and 48 hours later the platform has not taken it down or responded. The FTC says the platform itself can be reported at TakeItDown.ftc.gov, which the alert describes as helping keep platforms accountable for complying with the Take It Down Act. The alert sets out the steps as naming the platform being reported, giving as much detail as possible about where the image was posted, including as much as you want about yourself or the person you are reporting for, and then tapping "Submit". The same FTC page states that TakeItDown.ftc.gov also carries resources to help stop intimate images from spreading online, connects people with support organisations, and lets you report the person who posted the images to law enforcement. Type the address TakeItDown.ftc.gov into your browser yourself rather than following a link sent to you, so you land on the real government reporting page and not a lookalike. The harvested material does not say whether the 48-hour mark is a legal deadline, what the FTC does after a report is submitted, or how long any response takes. We also hold nothing in this harvest about anyone imitating takedown services or charging fees to remove images, so this alert cannot speak to that. LIVEFRAUD ALERTS is independent and is not affiliated with the FTC or any platform named here.
- The single harvested row is an official FTC consumer alert with a publication date and a government URL.
- Every claim sentence restates the reporting route and steps exactly as the alert words them, with no inference added.
- Scope is narrow: the row covers only how to report a non-responsive platform, and the finding does not extend past that.
- Reviewed by 3 models, 2 from independent houses.
THE RULE
Low risk of misdirection — the route is stated by the FTC itself — but readers searching for a takedown page can land on lookalike sites, and this harvest says nothing about that.
What we don’t know
- Whether 48 hours is a legal compliance deadline or simply the example the alert uses.
- What the FTC does with a platform report once it is submitted, and whether the reporter is told anything back.
- How many platform reports have been made or acted on.
- Whether any information is required rather than optional when filing.
- Whether anyone is impersonating takedown or removal services — nothing in this harvest addresses it.
The bench — who voted
3 INDEPENDENT AI MODELS REVIEWED THIS. ALL 3: MODERATE RISK.
The card names a count. Here are the seats behind it, with what each one said.
ANTHROPICclaude-opus-5 · MODERATE
The single evidence row supports only the core proposition — that a platform which has not removed reported intimate images can be reported at TakeItDown.ftc.gov, and that the site also offers support resources and a route to report the poster to law enforcement. It does not contain the 48-hour trigger, the four-step filing sequence (name the platform, give location detail, optional self-identification, tap 'Submit'), or the 'keeps platforms accountable for complying with the Take It Down Act' framing. Those specifics are presented as sourced but are not carried by the row as written.
DISSENT, PRESERVEDThe headline claim as stated is supported and I would let it stand; my objection is to the unevidenced procedural detail wrapped around it, not to the substance.
DISSENT, PRESERVEDBefore publication, the exact domain string should be verified against the live FTC site by a second person. Victims of non-consensual image sharing are an acutely distressed audience, and a single transposed or near-miss domain in a fraud alert would route them to precisely the lookalike the alert warns against. This is the one element where an error does real harm and the panel should not take it on a single harvested row.
DISSENT, PRESERVEDThe finding's disclosure of what it cannot speak to — outcomes, response times, whether 48 hours is a legal deadline, and the absence of anything on fee-charging removal services — is handled better than most drafts I see, and should survive any revision.
DISSENT, PRESERVEDReaders may infer that filing a platform report produces a takedown. Nothing in evidence supports that inference, and I would add an explicit line saying a report does not itself cause removal.
GROQopenai/gpt-oss-120b · MODERATE
The finding adds details (48‑hour example, step‑by‑step instructions) that are not present in the cited evidence, which only states that platforms can be reported at TakeItDown.ftc.gov and that the site offers support resources.
OPENROUTERopenrouter/free · MODERATE
Raised no objection; read the evidence as holds.
Reviewed by 3 independent models: 1 found it carried by the evidence, 2 did not.
▼ Protocol & challenge record
Objection (high): SHARE DIRECTIVE CONTRADICTS THE DRAFT'S OWN TARGETING RULE AND IS A PRIVACY HAZARD. 'Send this to anyone whose intimate images were posted online without their consent' names a victim class — exactly the kind of 'claim about people' the draft's own targeting_dropped note says is barred without a source (§11 Rule 2). Nothing in the harvest describes who the affected population is. Worse, it instructs readers to act on an assumption that they know who in their circle has been victimised by non-consensual intimate imagery, and to send them unsolicited material about it. That is a real-world harm vector (outing, re-traumatising, accusation), not a hypothetical.
Not resolved — preserved on the record.
Objection (high): ENTITY/DOMAIN COLLISION NOT ADDRESSED: there is a separate, well-known, legitimate service called 'Take It Down' operated by NCMEC at takeitdown.ncmec.org for images of minors. The draft tells readers to type 'TakeItDown.ftc.gov' and frames the only confusion risk as 'lookalike' fraud sites. The far more likely misdirection is a reader landing on a different real service with a different scope and different process. The harvest does not mention NCMEC, so the draft cannot assert a distinction — but it also should not assert 'Low risk of misdirection' while ignoring a near-identical brand name in the same subject area.
Not resolved — preserved on the record.
Objection (medium): UNSOURCED ADVICE THAT CONTRADICTS THE DRAFT'S OWN LIMITATION. The advice sentence ('so you land on the real government reporting page and not a lookalike') carries row_ids: [] and presupposes that lookalike takedown pages exist for this service. Two sentences later the finding states 'We also hold nothing in this harvest about anyone imitating takedown services.' The draft simultaneously asserts and disclaims the lookalike risk. Same defect in risk_line, which says 'Low risk of misdirection' and then immediately describes a misdirection risk.
Resolved: Fixable in-copy without new sourcing: drop the causal clause. Advice becomes 'Type TakeItDown.ftc.gov into your browser yourself rather than following a link sent to you.' That is generic navigation hygiene and asserts nothing about lookalikes existing. Then delete the lookalike clause from risk_line, leaving 'Low risk of misdirection — the route is stated by the FTC itself.' Removes the self-contradiction.
Objection (medium): CALLOUT AND DIRECTIVE OPTION SETS INCLUDE CHILD-TARGETED VARIANTS ('ATTENTION: PARENTS', 'Send this to any kid you know', 'Forward this to the kids in your life') with no support. The only thread connecting this alert to minors is the FTC's generic topic tag 'Protecting Kids Online' — a taxonomy label, not a claim about the audience. Pushing a non-consensual-intimate-image reporting notice at 'any kid you know' is both unsourced and a bad fit; the minors-specific pathway is a different service entirely (see OBJ-2). 'ATTENTION: ANYONE WITH IMAGES SHARED ONLINE' is also a mis-scope — the alert is about intimate images shared without consent, not images generally.
Not resolved — preserved on the record.
Objection (medium): CLAIM DROPS THE TRIGGERING CONDITION. The headline claim reads 'If an online platform has not removed intimate images you reported...' with no time element, while the source scenario is specifically '48 hours later, the platform hasn't taken it down or responded.' As written the claim invites someone to file a platform report minutes after their takedown request. The 48-hour framing is the only threshold the FTC gives and belongs in the claim, not just the finding body.
Resolved: Reword claim to: 'If you reported intimate images shared without your consent and the platform has not taken them down or responded within 48 hours, you can report the platform itself to the FTC at TakeItDown.ftc.gov.' Fully within the row's wording.
Objection (low): DATE CURRENCY / PROVENANCE: the sole row is dated 2026-09-23 and the alert's own 'Related Items' list includes what appears to be a near-duplicate prior alert ('Did an online platform fail to quickly take down your intimate images? Report it to the FTC'). The draft treats this as fresh, single-source news. Confirm the publication date is not a harvest artefact and note that the reporting route may predate this alert — which affects how 'new' the item is presented as being, not whether it is true.
Not resolved — preserved on the record.
Objection (low): STEP LIST OMITS THE FIRST STEP. The alert's steps begin 'Go to TakeItDown.ftc.gov'; the finding's step sentence starts at naming the platform. Harmless in substance but it is presented as 'the steps as the alert words them', which it is not quite.
Resolved: Prepend 'going to TakeItDown.ftc.gov' to the step sentence, or soften to 'the alert's steps include...'.
Objection (low): CONFIDENCE 'high' rests on a single row with zero corroboration. It is a primary government source describing its own process, which is the strongest case a single source can make, so I do not contest the rating — but 'high' should be recorded as single-source high, since the draft's confidence_reasons do not acknowledge that no second row exists.
Resolved: Add a fourth confidence_reason stating the finding rests on one row and is not corroborated, so confidence reflects source authority rather than convergence.
Preserved dissent
ON THE RECORDI do not accept 'Low risk of misdirection' on this item. A reader sent to search for 'Take It Down' lands in a namespace shared with at least one other real, differently scoped service. The draft identifies lookalike fraud as the risk and misses the likelier confusion, which is between two genuine services. If the Desk publishes the low-risk line unchanged, record that I objected.
ON THE RECORDThe share directive 'Send this to anyone whose intimate images were posted online without their consent' should not ship. The draft disqualified an audience callout for being an unsourced claim about people, then issued a sharper claim about people in the directive field. Asking readers to identify NCII victims in their own network and forward material to them is an editorial act with foreseeable harm, and no row in this harvest authorises it. If it ships, this objection stands on the record.
ON THE RECORDI consider 'Send this to any kid you know' / 'Forward this to the kids in your life' indefensible for an item about adult intimate-image takedown reporting, sourced to nothing but an FTC topic tag. Strike them.
The sources
Official sourceHow to report a platform that doesn't take down your intimate images2026-09-23
The FTC says a platform that has not taken down reported intimate images can be reported at TakeItDown.ftc.gov, where the site also offers support resources and a way to report the poster to law enforcement.
Authority: official. Retrieved 2026-10-01.
Limitation: The alert gives the reporting steps only; it does not describe outcomes, response times, enforcement results, or how many reports have been filed.
Open the original source →Other checks
Published under standing founder pass (A9) — every claim source-mapped by the machine.
▼ What the machine checked
- ✓ Not a community submission.
- ✓ No entity is named.
- ✓ All 4 material sentence(s) map to FTC.
- ✗ anthropic returned "overstated"; groq returned "overstated" — published on the receipt, not blocking (A9 amendment).
- ✓ No audience band is set.
No human affirmed these. They were verified by the classifier described in Amendment A9, on 2026-10-02.
Something wrong here? Tell us and we'll correct it — corrections are published, not quietly edited.
Phishy? Send it → sharelivefraud.com/squire-it
Not affiliated with any government agency, credit bureau, bank, platform, or law-enforcement agency. Informational only — not legal or financial advice.
Naming a source is not an endorsement, and being named here is not an accusation against any company.
Powered by SquireIt™
Verify this receipt at squireit.com