Case: Motherless.com – NOS Media Inquiry (May 2026)

Summary
NFOrce was contacted by journalists regarding its infrastructure services provided to a customer operating a user-generated content platform.

The inquiry focused on:

The nature of NFOrce’s business relationship
Historical involvement of Securest
Abuse handling procedures
Legal and regulatory responsibilities

Key Clarifications

NFOrce provides colocation, IP transit, and hardware-related infrastructure services
NFOrce does not operate, manage, or control customer websites or their content
Responsibility for content lies solely with the website operator
Abuse reports are handled through formal legal and procedural frameworks
Customer identities and contractual details are confidential under Dutch and EU law
Industry-standard reseller structures are common and not intended to obscure relationships

Full email correspondence
We received the email with questions from NOS on 06-05-2026.

Beste heer, mevrouw,

Ik ben onderzoeksjournalist bij de NOS en werk aan een verhaal over Motherless.com, een site waar volgens experts allerlei dubieus en potentieel illegaal materiaal op te vinden is. Aangezien jullie de hosting van Motherless.com verzorgen, wil ik jullie daar graag een aantal vragen over stellen.

Ik wil jullie graag vragen hierop te reageren. Ook als jullie niet op deze vragen antwoorden, zullen we jullie bedrijf noemen en bedrijfsnaam/logo en website in beeld brengen.

Ik wil jullie graag vragen om te reageren op deze vragen voor morgenochtend 7 maart, 09:00, NL tijd.

Zijn jullie bewust van het feit dat jullie de hoster van Motherless.com zijn?
Valt deze site, die veelvuldig wordt beschuldigd van het hosten van inbreukmakend materiaal, binnen jullie acceptable use policy https://www.nforce.com/policies/AUP.pdf ?
Indien nee, kunnen jullie uitleggen hoe Motherless.com niet in strijd is met artikel 1.4? Wij citeren: "The following constitutes violations of this AUP: (…) Use of the NE service to transmit or receive any material (by e-mail, uploading, posting or otherwise) that harasses another”
Indien nee, kunnen jullie uitleggen hoe Motherless.com niet in strijd is met artikel 1.1?
Zijn jullie ervan bewust dat jullie een reputatie beginnen op te bouwen als ‘bad hoster’, omdat jullie ver bovengemiddeld verantwoordelijk zijn gebleken https://www.computable.nl/2020/10/12/nforce-en-ip-volume-laks-in-aanpak-kinderporno voor de verspreiding van kinderporno?
Hebben jullie sinds 1 juli 2024 een last onder dwangsom of aanwijzing van de ATKM ontvangen, betreffende Motherless of een andere klant?
Hoe vaak krijgen jullie meldingen van trusted flaggers zoals EOKM, en hoe vaak gaan die over Motherless?
Wat is jullie beleid met sites die uploads van derden accepteren en die structureel de regels overtreden?

Met vriendelijke groet,
Joost Schellevis

Our reply on 06-05-2026

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

Thank you for your email and for the opportunity to respond to your questions.

We have reviewed your questions carefully and provide our responses below.

Given the nature of several questions and the characterizations contained within them, we believe it is important to provide factual clarification regarding NFOrce’s role as an infrastructure service provider, our abuse-handling procedures, and the legal and operational framework within which we operate.

NFOrce does not operate, manage, or control customer websites or their content. Our role is limited to providing infrastructure-related services within applicable Dutch and European legal frameworks. As with all customers, abuse reports and compliance matters are handled in accordance with established procedures, applicable laws, and formal notifications received through the appropriate channels.

Question 1:
Are you aware that you are the hosting provider for Motherless.com?

Answer 1:
Yes, we are aware that NFOrce provides infrastructure services to the customer operating this website.

NFOrce’s services in this case consist of colocation and IP transit connectivity, and limited hardware-related infrastructure services.

NFOrce is not involved in the operation, management, moderation, or editorial control of the website or its content.

Question 2:
Does this site, which is frequently accused of hosting infringing material, comply with your Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)?

Answer 2:
NFOrce applies its Acceptable Use Policy and applicable legal obligations consistently across all customers and services.

For platforms that host user-generated content, the existence of individual uploads that may violate laws or third-party rights does not automatically mean that the entire service is operating in violation of our AUP. NFOrce assesses reports of alleged unlawful content on a case-by-case basis, including the handling of valid abuse notifications and compliance with applicable legal requirements.

Where violations of applicable law or our policies are established, appropriate action is taken.

Question 3:
Can you explain how Motherless.com is not in violation of Article 1.4 of your AUP?

Answer 3:
Article 1.4 applies to unlawful or abusive use of services. NFOrce assesses such matters based on specific reports, applicable legal frameworks, and the handling of valid abuse notifications.

As with other platforms that host user-generated content, the existence of individual uploads that may violate laws or policies does not automatically mean that the entire service is structurally in violation of the AUP.

Question 4:
Can you explain how Motherless.com is not in violation of Article 1.1 of your AUP?

Answer 4:
Article 1.1 of NFOrce’s AUP prohibits the use of services for illegal purposes or in support of illegal activities.

NFOrce assesses alleged violations based on specific reports, applicable legal frameworks, and the actions taken in response to valid abuse notifications. The existence of allegations, complaints, or unlawful third-party uploads on a user-generated content platform does not automatically constitute a determination that the entire service is operating illegally or in violation of the AUP.

Where violations of applicable law or our policies are established, appropriate action is taken.

Question 5:
Are you aware that you are beginning to develop a reputation as a ‘bad hoster’, because your company has been shown to be disproportionately responsible for the distribution of child sexual abuse material?

Answer 5:
We do not recognize that characterization.

The article referenced concerns reporting from 2020 that contained important inaccuracies and lacked relevant operational context regarding the role and responsibilities of infrastructure providers.

At the time, NFOrce formally contested aspects of the conclusions and methodology.

Since then, NFOrce has continued to maintain and further strengthen its abuse-handling and compliance procedures. We act proactively on abuse notifications, cooperate with competent authorities and trusted organizations, and apply enforcement measures where required, including suspension or termination of services in cases where customers fail to meet legal or contractual obligations.

As an infrastructure provider, NFOrce operates within applicable Dutch and European legal frameworks and assesses matters based on established legal procedures and verified abuse reporting processes.

For the purpose of transparency, we have attached:

the Dutch government’s 2023 CSAM Hosting Monitor report,
the formal legal letter sent by NFOrce to the Dutch government in 2020 regarding the conclusions referenced,
and additional public background information published by the Dutch Cloud Community: https://dutchcloudcommunity.nl/nieuws/update-over-de-csam-scan-resultaten-2023/

The 2023 report is also publicly available via: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2023/07/07/tk-bijlage-csam-hosting-monitor-final-report-mar-2023

Question 6:
Have you since July 1, 2024 received any penalty orders (“last onder dwangsom”) or directives (“aanwijzingen”) from the ATKM concerning Motherless or any other customer?

Answer 6:
No. NFOrce has not received any penalty orders (“last onder dwangsom”) or directives (“aanwijzingen”) from the ATKM concerning Motherless or, to our knowledge, any other customer.

NFOrce has consistently cooperated with relevant authorities and organizations and maintains established procedures for handling abuse reports and compliance-related matters. Valid complaints submitted through the appropriate channels are assessed and handled in accordance with applicable legal frameworks and our internal procedures.

Prior to the CNN article, NFOrce had not received information indicating that the website operator was failing to respond to valid abuse reports, was non-compliant with applicable procedures, or was subject to an active investigation.

NFOrce had received no indication from relevant organizations that the website operator was failing to cooperate with valid abuse handling procedures.

NFOrce maintains strict abuse and compliance policies. Where customers fail to comply with applicable legal or contractual obligations, enforcement measures may include suspension and termination of services.

Question 7:
How often do you receive reports from trusted flaggers such as EOKM, and how often do those reports concern Motherless?

Answer 7:
NFOrce does not publicly disclose customer-specific operational data, including the volume or frequency of abuse reports relating to individual customers.

In general, NFOrce works closely with relevant organizations, trusted flaggers, and competent authorities in relation to abuse handling and compliance matters. Reports submitted through the appropriate channels are assessed and processed in accordance with applicable laws, established procedures, and internal compliance policies.

Where valid reports identify unlawful content or non-compliance, appropriate action is taken in coordination with the customer and, where applicable, relevant authorities.

Question 8:
What is your policy with sites that accept uploads from third parties and that structurally violate the rules?

Answer 8:
NFOrce applies its Acceptable Use Policy and abuse procedures consistently across all customers, including platforms that host user-generated content.

For websites that accept third-party uploads, customers are expected to maintain appropriate moderation and abuse-handling procedures, respond to valid legal notices, and comply with applicable legal and contractual obligations.

Where a customer persistently fails to address valid abuse notifications, does not comply with applicable legal requirements, or otherwise breaches our policies or contractual terms, NFOrce may take enforcement measures including suspension or termination of services.

For broader context regarding the scale and industry-wide nature of online abuse reporting, we note that reports concerning harmful and unlawful content are processed globally across a wide range of online platforms and infrastructure providers, including some of the world’s largest technology companies with extensive moderation teams and technical resources.

The existence of abuse reports alone should therefore not automatically be interpreted as evidence that a provider supports unlawful content, but rather reflects the ongoing necessity of detection, reporting, moderation, and enforcement processes across the internet ecosystem.

Additional reference material regarding industry reporting volumes can be found via the U.S. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC): https://www.missingkids.org/content/dam/missingkids/pdfs/cybertiplinedata2024/2024-reports-by-esp.pdf

We trust that our responses clarify NFOrce’s position and role, and that we have answered your questions regarding NFOrce’s involvement comprehensively.

We respectfully request that our responses be reflected accurately and in their full context.

Kind regards,
Simon

Followup questions from NOS on 06-05-2026

Dear Mr. Elimeleh, dear Simon,

Thank you for your reply. Two follow-up questions.

You stated that prior to the CNN publication of 26 March 2026, NFOrce had not received information that the operator of Motherless.com was subject to an active investigation. How does this position relate to (a) the STRG_F documentary "Das Vergewaltiger-Netzwerk auf Telegram" (NDR/Panorama, 17 December 2024), (b) Ofcom's publicly opened investigation into Kick Online Entertainment S.A. on 14 May 2025, (c) Ofcom's Provisional Notice of Contravention of 19 November 2025, and (d) Ofcom's Confirmation Decision of 11 February 2026, fining your customer £830,000 for breaches of the UK Online Safety Act?
Has anything changed in NFOrce's relationship with, or assessment of, the operator of Motherless.com since the CNN publication of 26 March 2026 — and if so, what specifically?

Wist regards,
Joost Schellevis

Our reply on 06-05-2026

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

Thank you for your follow-up questions.

With regard to your first question, our earlier response referred specifically to information received by NFOrce through abuse-handling processes, cooperation with relevant organizations, competent authorities, or direct compliance-related communications indicating that the customer was failing to respond to valid abuse notifications or was otherwise non-compliant with applicable procedures.

Public reporting, documentaries, or regulatory publications in other jurisdictions are not, in themselves, equivalent to formal findings communicated to NFOrce regarding unlawful conduct, failure to cooperate with abuse handling obligations, or instructions requiring NFOrce to suspend or terminate services.

As previously stated, NFOrce continuously assesses customer relationships within applicable legal and regulatory frameworks and in light of available information.

With regard to your second question, following the CNN publication and broader reporting referenced, NFOrce has conducted additional internal review and reiterated its expectations to the customer regarding abuse handling, responsiveness, and compliance obligations. As with any customer relationship, we continue to monitor compliance with applicable legal, contractual, and policy requirements on an ongoing basis.

Kind regards,
Simon

Our reply to the published article on 06-05-2026

https://nos.nl/artikel/2613430-servers-pornosite-met-misbruikcontent-en-drogeervideo-s-staan-nederland

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

We would like to point out a significant factual inaccuracy in the article.

The statement:
“Elimeleh benadrukt dat Nforce kinderporno consequent en snel verwijdert” incorrectly suggests that NFOrce itself has operational control over customer website content and directly removes content from customer platforms.

As explained in our previous correspondence, this is not how NFOrce operates.

NFOrce acts as an infrastructure provider. Abuse reports are forwarded to the customer or website operator, who is responsible for reviewing and handling the reported content. NFOrce monitors compliance with applicable legal and contractual obligations and sets appropriate deadlines for response and remediation. Where customers fail to comply with these obligations or fail to act within the required timeframes, NFOrce may suspend or terminate services.

NFOrce does not operate, manage, or moderate customer platforms or their content, and can only intervene within the scope permitted under applicable legal and regulatory frameworks.

We kindly request that this distinction be reflected accurately in the article.

In addition, the article references specific URLs and content allegedly identified during your reporting. To date, NFOrce has not received any abuse reports or notifications regarding these specific URLs through our designated abuse handling channels.

To ensure appropriate follow-up and review where necessary, we would appreciate clarification as to whether these URLs were reported to the website operator or submitted through NFOrce’s established abuse reporting procedures.

Kind regards,
Simon

NOS replied on 07-05-2026

Dear Mr. Elimeleh,

Thanks, we update the article with clarifications.

With regards

Followup questions from NOS on 08-05-2026

Dear Mr. Elimeleh,

Currently, Motherless seems to be offline. Can you confirm this? Is this a disruption or have you ceased your services to Motherless?

With regards

Our reply on 08-05-2026

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

Following the recent media coverage, NFOrce was contacted by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) and law enforcement authorities in relation to the matters referenced in the reporting.

As part of this process, NFOrce cooperated fully and provided assistance where requested. During this period, we were instructed not to communicate with the customer or take independent action while the authorities assessed the situation.

Certain actions taken in coordination with the authorities resulted in the website becoming temporarily unavailable. For legal and operational reasons, we are not in a position to comment further on the specific actions or measures taken by the authorities in this matter.

We can confirm that NFOrce has not terminated services to the customer.

Following subsequent communication with the relevant authorities, NFOrce was informed that services could continue under the applicable legal framework. However, before allowing the platform to resume normal operations, NFOrce decided to conduct an additional internal compliance review in light of the allegations and reporting referenced.

As part of this process, we have requested further information and clarification from the customer, including additional review of reported content categories and related matters. The website will remain unavailable pending completion of this review and further evaluation of the information requested.

NFOrce maintains a constructive and cooperative working relationship with the Public Prosecution Service and law enforcement authorities, and we fully support their role and responsibilities in investigating potential unlawful activity.

Kind regards,
Simon

Our request for data on 08-05-2026

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

Following your reporting and the references made in the article to specific URLs and content identified during your investigation, we would like to request additional information to allow proper review and follow-up.

To date, NFOrce has not received notifications from NOS or other media outlets containing the specific URLs referenced in the reporting, nor were these URLs submitted through our established abuse reporting procedures. We have likewise not received confirmation that these URLs were reported to the website operator or to the relevant authorities for assessment and follow-up.

Where potentially unlawful content is identified, timely reporting of such material to the relevant parties is essential to ensure that appropriate assessment, mitigation, and enforcement actions can be taken without unnecessary delay. Publishing allegations regarding specific content without first reporting the relevant URLs through the appropriate abuse handling channels significantly limits the ability of infrastructure providers, website operators, and authorities to review and address such material.

In order for NFOrce to properly assess the matters referenced and ensure that appropriate action is taken by the website operator where required, we request that you provide the full URLs and any relevant identifying information relating to the content investigated and considered problematic.

Upon receipt, these reports will be reviewed and processed in accordance with our established abuse handling and compliance procedures.

Kind regards,
Simon

NOS replied on 08-05-2026

Dear Mr. Elimeleh,

Thanks, we updated the article: https://nos.nl/artikel/2613560-om-haalt-site-met-stiekem-gefilmde-misbruikbeelden-motherless-offline

About the sharing of URL’s, that question is above our pay grades, I will consult my editor in chief.

With regards

Our request for data (Reminder) on 13-05-2026

Dear Mr. Schellevis,

We would like to kindly follow up regarding our previous requests of 8 May 2026 concerning the specific URLs and related identifying information referenced in your reporting and investigations concerning Motherless.com.

To date, NFOrce has still not received the URLs referenced in the various publications, nor confirmation that these were submitted to NFOrce, the website operator, or the relevant authorities for assessment and follow-up.

As previously explained, access to the specific URLs and related information is important in order for the matters referenced in the reporting to be properly reviewed and assessed.

We would therefore appreciate if the relevant URLs and associated identifying information could be shared with us so that they can be reviewed further with the website operator where required.

Kind regards,
Simon

Our reply to the published article on 05-06-2026

https://nos.nl/artikel/2617195-medewerkers-beruchte-pornosite-motherless-plaatsen-zelf-kinderporno

Dear all,

We write further to our previous requests of 8 May 2026 regarding the URLs and supporting information underlying the allegations published in your reporting concerning Motherless.com.

On 8 May 2026, following publication of your earlier reporting, we requested the specific URLs and identifying information underlying the findings referenced in the articles. In response, Mr. Schellevis informed us that the matter was "above our pay grades" and that he would consult with his editor-in-chief regarding the request. Since that time, despite the publication of additional articles containing further allegations, we have not received a substantive response or the requested information.

Since our initial request, additional articles have been published containing serious allegations relating to specific content, accounts, moderators, and alleged child sexual abuse material. These allegations are of a nature that warrants careful review and verification.

Following an internal review, we have confirmed that during the past 30 days only two URLs have been received and forwarded through our abuse handling process, both received today. We have further confirmed with the website operator that these correspond to the only reports they have received during the same period.

This raises an obvious question. Your reporting states that specific content, accounts, images, and moderator activity were identified during your investigation. Furthermore, the reporting appears to indicate that at least some of the referenced content remained available at the time of your investigation and publication. However, neither NFOrce nor the website operator appear to have been provided with the underlying information necessary to independently review and investigate those findings.

If content was believed to be unlawful and remained available at the time of your investigation, we would like to understand why the relevant URLs and identifying information were not provided so that the matter could be reviewed and, where appropriate, acted upon without delay.

Given the seriousness of the allegations being made publicly, we believe it is important that the underlying information be made available so that the claims can be independently reviewed and validated.

We therefore again request that you provide the relevant URLs, account names, screenshots, hashes, and any other identifying information relied upon in your investigations.

For completeness and transparency, we have attached below the correspondence received from the website operator relating to the allegations referenced in your reporting. We have also copied ATKM and Offlimits on this correspondence given their respective roles in online safety, abuse reporting, and compliance matters.

We believe this correspondence is relevant because it demonstrates that, following the inquiry from NOS, the website operator specifically requested the URLs and identifying information relating to the alleged content in order to investigate the claims and take appropriate action where necessary.

As will be apparent from the correspondence, the operator states that the requested URLs were not provided, despite the seriousness of the allegations being raised publicly.

The correspondence follows below:

Dear NFOrce Team,

On 3 June 2026, NOS sent an inquiry to Motherless raising allegations of unlawful content on the platform. That inquiry did not contain any URLs, specific media files, or identifying information regarding the content or the accounts in question.

On 4 June 2026, Motherless sent a formal point-by-point response to NOS, addressing every question raised and requesting the relevant URLs so that a proper investigation could be conducted in accordance with our established procedures.

Contrary to claims later made by NOS, no URLs were provided in their initial communication, and a complete response was sent by Motherless on 4 June 2026. The full original correspondence is pasted below for your reference.

Motherless takes allegations of this nature with the utmost seriousness. Following the events in May 2026, we had already initiated an internal review and implemented strengthened operational and moderation measures prior to receiving the NOS inquiry. These measures are designed to reduce the availability of violating content and to ensure that reports are handled promptly and consistently.

The key measures now in place include:
Immediate freezing of any reported content upon receipt of a report, with no waiting period or threshold required.
A public ticketing and transparency system that logs every report from submission through full resolution, including timestamps.
Expanded automated blacklisting of high-risk keywords, tags, and combinations. Files matching these terms are blocked from upload and public display and escalated for human review.
Human moderation review of all flagged content, followed by removal of the media file, the full view page, and all associated keywords, tags, and comments.
Permanent bans applied to accounts responsible for violating uploads.
Continued proactive cooperation with law enforcement and recognized organizations, including NCMEC.
All reports, regardless of source, are processed through the same established procedures. When specific URLs are provided, we are able to act immediately to remove content and take further appropriate action.
We remain committed to operating the platform in compliance with applicable laws and to maintaining transparent cooperation with NFOrce. We are prepared to provide any additional information or documentation you may require.

Please find the full original correspondence below for your reference.

Subject: New press request from Dutch public tv about Motherless.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:43:52 +0000
From: Ulrike Nagel
To: "dmca@motherless.com" , "abuse@motherless.com" , "press@motherless.com" , "info@motherless.com" , "contact@motherless.com"

Dear Sir, Madam,

My colleague Joost Schellevis and I are working as investigative journalists with NOS, the Netherlands' public service broadcaster. We are preparing a new publication on motherless.com, concerning the publication of illegal content.
We found out administrators of Motherless have uploaded at least twenty images with CSAM content. This is known CSAM material as reported by international police organisations.

The website got shut down for a few days by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service in May, and shortly afterwards went online again. We researched and checked the illegal content we found and in line with Dutch journalistic standards, we are offering Motherless.com and its operators the opportunity to respond to these findings before publication. The questions below set out the specific points on which we are seeking your response.

We urge you to respond to these questions before Friday, June 5th, 9:00 CEST.

* Is Motherless aware of the illegal content on the website? We found more than 20 photographs of CSAM, using the hash-matching technology. We also found out that this content was uploaded by the administrators of Motherless. What is your response to this?
* What is Motherless's standard procedure and target response time for takedown notices received from trusted flaggers such as the Dutch Offlimits/Helpwanted hotline?
* Does Motherless deploy hash-matching technology such as PhotoDNA, CSAI Match, or Take It Down to scan uploaded images and videos against known CSAM and NCII databases? If not, why not?
* What process does Motherless follow when a person reports that material depicting them was uploaded without their consent, and what is the average time from report to removal
* What documentation, if any, does Motherless require from uploaders to verify the age and consent of every identifiable person depicted in uploaded material before that material is made public?
* How many human content moderators does Motherless employ or contract, and what is the median time between an upload going live and being reviewed by a moderator?
If you require clarification on any of the questions, or if a different point of contact within your organization would be more appropriate to address them, please let me know at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely,
Joost Schellevis and Ulrike Nagel
Met vriendelijke groet,

Ulrike Nagel
Binnenland / Radio 1 Journaal
06-57786017
NOS Nieuws

[cid:image001.png@01DCF36F.C62B2CF0]

Sumatralaan 45 | Postbus 26600 1202 JT Hilversum
www.nos.nl

Subject: Re: Fwd: New press request from Dutch public tv about Motherless.com
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 13:16:13 -0500
From: Motherless Legal Department
To: Motherless DMCA Department , Ulrike.Nagel@nos.nl

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for reaching out.

Regarding your questions:

Question: Is Motherless aware of the illegal content on the website? We found more than 20 photographs of CSAM, using the hash-matching technology. We also found out that this content was uploaded by the administrators of Motherless. What is your response to this?

Answer: We were not aware of the existence of such material in its entirety on our website, and especially not from an administrator. Since this is a serious violation of our Terms of Service and may involve illegal content, we request that you provide the URLs of the material so that appropriate action can be taken, including removal and reporting to the authorities where necessary, as we always do. Our moderation structure includes both volunteer moderators and administrators, all of whom are subject to the same rules and enforcement policies. That said, we follow a strict policy, and if any of them have violated it, we will take action as we would with any other user. Once again, please provide the links so we can act accordingly.

Question: What is Motherless's standard procedure and target response time for takedown notices received from trusted flaggers such as the Dutch Offlimits/Helpwanted hotline?

Answer: Takedown notices are usually processed immediately after being sent to our dedicated email at dmca@motherless.com. While this is typically the case, our internal policy allows for a response time of up to 4 hours. We take all abuse reports and takedown requests seriously and handle every request with equal priority, applying the same level of attention and urgency regardless of the source. Additionally, we work with organizations such as NCMEC and law enforcement agencies around the world to ensure the appropriate legal process is followed when illegal content is identified.

Question: Does Motherless deploy hash-matching technology such as PhotoDNA, CSAI Match, or Take It Down to scan uploaded images and videos against known CSAM and NCII databases? If not, why not?

Answer: Motherless does deploy hash-matching technology using external hash databases as well as an internal hashing database, which is built from content that has been identified and reported by our platform to organizations such as NCMEC. These CSAM file checksums are updated on a daily basis. While we do have systems in place to check against known CSAM hashes, there may be cases where a file was uploaded before it was added to the database and is therefore not detected during hash-matching, resulting in a false negative. Additionally, we are open to integrating additional hash databases. If there are suggestions you can provide, we are willing to review and evaluate them.

Question: What process does Motherless follow when a person reports that material depicting them was uploaded without their consent, and what is the average time from report to removal?

Answer: Motherless treats all reports submitted by individuals with the same level of attention as formal takedown requests. Reports made directly on the site by users are immediately removed from public view and escalated for review by a human moderator. As with takedown requests, user-reported content is reviewed promptly, with a maximum processing time of up to 4 hours.

Question: What documentation, if any, does Motherless require from uploaders to verify the age and consent of every identifiable person depicted in uploaded material before that material is made public?
Answer: As a platform, we implement various measures to help ensure that individuals depicted in uploaded material are of appropriate age. Every file undergoes a series of automated checks, including hash-matching and AI-based systems designed to assess age and compliance with applicable laws. However, there remains a possibility of false positives and false negatives, as is the case with similar systems used across other platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube.

Question: How many human content moderators does Motherless employ or contract, and what is the median time between an upload going live and being reviewed by a moderator?

Answer: There are currently dozens of human moderators and community members who continuously review the site. The time it takes for an upload to go live varies from day to day and is primarily determined by the volume of uploads in the queue, as well as the time required for automated systems to process and analyze the content. To ensure the site operates smoothly and to prevent uploads from flooding the platform, an additional delay is applied between submission and public release. During this period, uploads are only visible to moderators and may be removed if they are found to violate the Terms of Service.

Regards,
Motherless.com Legal Department.

We remain available for any further discussion or documentation required.
Best regards,
Motherless.com

We look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Simon

Back to transparency reports