Route a grievance to the layer that can actually act.
Paste a URL or a sitemap. The desk classifies the grievance, screens it for a genuine policy or legal basis, then routes it down the stack — host, registrar, CDN, search — to the party with the authority to act, with a drafted report for each.
Intake
single URL, list, or sitemap.xmlClassify the grievance
legitimacy gatePaste the page's text or your notes and the desk ranks the likely basis, showing the signals behind each call. It flags protected content — news, reviews, records — as not a valid basis too. Override anything below.
Resolve the stack
who hosts, registers, fronts the domainRouting plan
ordered venues + evidenceDrafted reports
tailored per venuePolicy Register
Current abuse channels, accepted categories, and the operational nuance that decides whether a report lands. Each entry links to the canonical source so you can re-verify — providers revise these quietly. See the Field Manual for a Cloudflare Worker that watches these pages for changes.
Field Manual
The reasoning the desk runs on — and the standards that keep reports effective and defensible.
The golden rule of routing
What is genuinely actionable
Providers act quickly on technical and safety violations — phishing, malware, spam/AUP breaches, CSAM, NCII, credible threats — and on rights-based claims you're entitled to bring: copyright in a work you own, your registered trademark used to deceive, exposed personally-identifying data, court-ordered unlawful content. These have clean evidence and clear policy hooks.
What isn't — and why forcing it backfires
Accurate journalism, honest reviews and opinion, public and court records, and true-but-unflattering information are not policy violations. Abuse desks are built to reject these, and pushing them through the wrong door has real costs:
- A
DMCAnotice on material you don't own is a sworn statement made under penalty of perjury — bogus notices expose you to liability under17 U.S.C. § 512(f). - Repeated invalid reports get a sender de-prioritised or blacklisted by an abuse desk, weakening your legitimate filings.
- Takedown attempts on lawful content routinely trigger the Streisand effect and counter-coverage.
When content is lawful, the honest routes are: a factual-correction or right-of-reply request to the publisher; narrow GDPR/"right to be forgotten" delisting where an EU data subject qualifies; suppression through owned assets you control; or — if it is actually defamatory — a legal process that ends in a court order, which then unlocks the court-order removal path at Google and the host.
Evidence standards
Every report is only as good as its proof. Bring: the exact offending URL (never just the homepage); a timestamped screenshot; for email abuse, full plain-text headers; for malware, a VirusTotal or sandbox link; for rights claims, the registration number / link to your original work and a statement of authorisation. De-fang live malicious URLs (hxxps://, [.]) so filters don't strip your report.
Continuous policy monitoring (Part A, wired for real)
A static page can't poll live policies, so pair this desk with a scheduled watcher. The companion file policy-monitor-worker.js is a Cloudflare Worker (cron-triggered) that fetches each canonical policy URL in the register, hashes the content into Workers KV, and emails you via Resend when a page changes — so "verified" is a live date, not a snapshot. Deploy notes are in the handoff.
Scope
This desk organises reporting workflow and drafts correspondence. It doesn't determine whether content is unlawful — that's a legal judgment. For defamation, court orders, or cross-border questions, route through counsel (Taylor Wessing / Farrer & Co. on the referral list).