How enforcement works
How potential policy issues are identified, reviewed and decided, and what action may follow.
1
Report or detection
A potential issue may be reported by a person or identified by Media.com.
2
Review
The relevant content, account or activity is assessed against Media.com’s policies and available context.
3
Decision
A decision is made and recorded against the relevant policy.
4
Action
Any action reflects the nature of the issue, its severity, context and account history.
5
Notification
Where appropriate, the affected publisher is told what was decided and why.
6
Appeal
Eligible decisions can be reviewed again through Media.com’s appeals process.
How reviews are assessed
Enforcement decisions are based on more than the content viewed in isolation. Reviewers consider the applicable policy together with the context in which the content, account or activity appears.
The applicable policy
Which Media.com rule or policy is relevant.
Context
The surrounding circumstances, meaning and purpose of the content or activity.
Severity
The seriousness of the potential harm or policy issue.
Intent
Where relevant, whether conduct appears deliberate, deceptive, accidental or otherwise contextual.
Reach and impact
How widely the activity has occurred and the potential or actual impact.
Account history
Previous relevant conduct or enforcement history where appropriate.
Source information
The identity, verification status and provenance associated with the account or publication.
Additional evidence
Information supplied by reporters, publishers or other relevant sources.
Not every factor applies to every decision, and no single factor automatically determines the outcome.
Reports are signals, not decisions
Reporting helps Media.com identify content or activity that may require review. A report does not itself establish that anything is wrong.
Multiple reports about the same content do not automatically increase the likelihood of enforcement. Media.com evaluates the underlying issue against its policies.
Enforcement actions
Media.com can take different types of action depending on the policy involved, the seriousness of the issue and the surrounding circumstances.
These actions are not a fixed sequence. Media.com may apply the action appropriate to the circumstances rather than progressing through each level.
Context matters
The same type of content can require different outcomes depending on how and why it appears. Documentary or journalistic context, criticism or commentary, educational material, quoted material, satire and public-interest discussion are all treated differently from direct threats or targeted abuse.
Media.com considers context when applying its policies, while still taking action where content or behavior creates a genuine policy or safety concern.
Urgent safety issues
Some reports require faster review because of the potential for serious or immediate harm. These can include credible threats of violence, child safety concerns, severe privacy exposure, active scams or impersonation causing harm, compromised accounts and other serious safety risks.
Media.com may prioritize these matters and take temporary measures while a review is completed.
When identity or authenticity is questioned
Where a concern relates to impersonation, account ownership, organization authority or verification, Media.com may review the identity behind the account separately from the content itself.
That review can involve requesting additional verification, confirming organization authority, temporarily restricting publishing, reviewing compromised account access or updating verification status.
Media.com may know the identity behind an account even where that person’s legal identity is not displayed publicly.
Learn about Verification & Authenticity →
Review includes the source
Media.com is designed to retain information about who published content, when it was published and how it may have changed.
Where relevant, reviewers may consider publication history, source information and previous versions of content when assessing an issue.
Explaining decisions
Where appropriate, Media.com tells affected publishers when enforcement action has been taken and explains the basis for the decision. A notification may cover the content or account affected, the policy involved, the action taken, the reason for the decision and whether it can be appealed.
Some information may be withheld where disclosure could create a safety, security, legal or privacy risk.
Decisions can be challenged
Eligible enforcement decisions can be appealed. An appeal asks Media.com to review the original decision again, including any additional information provided by the affected user.
An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse the original decision.
Policies guide decisions
Media.com’s Rules & Policies provide the framework for enforcement decisions.
Some decisions are straightforward. Others require judgment because context, intent, authenticity or potential harm may need to be considered. Similar cases should be assessed consistently, while still allowing relevant differences in circumstances to be taken into account.
Technology can help identify issues
Media.com may use automated systems to identify potential spam, abuse, security threats or other activity requiring review.
Automated detection can help surface issues, but a detection signal is not itself a final enforcement decision.
Enforcement is not based on popularity
Media.com does not determine whether content stays online simply by counting reports, reactions or disagreement. Enforcement is based on Media.com’s policies and the circumstances of the particular case.
Content may be controversial, critical or unpopular without violating Media.com’s rules.