Everything people ask before they trust us

We're a managed social media takedown service. We verify that a post, profile or account genuinely violates a platform's rules or the law, assemble the evidence into an indexed pack, file it through the platform's official reporting or legal channel, and manage the review and appeals until the file closes — one case owner, start to finish.

No — and you should walk away from anyone who says yes. Removal decisions belong to the platform. What a professional service controls is the filing quality: the correct policy citation, evidence a reviewer can verify, and appeals submitted on time. That's what actually moves the odds, and it's what you're paying for.

Never. Coordinated false reporting breaks every major platform's rules, gets filtered before a human sees it, and can expose the person who ordered it. We file single, documented reports through official channels only. Fewer filings, heavier ones.

With us, yes — a codename and a Telegram handle are enough to start, and plenty of clients never share more. On the platform side it depends on the route: some report forms accept complaints from any user, while copyright and certain impersonation filings require the rights holder's real details. We tell you exactly which applies before anything is filed.

Links to the offending material, screenshots if you already have them, and — only when the route demands it — proof of identity or ownership, such as an ID for impersonation or originals for a copyright claim. Assembling, ordering and indexing the pack is our job, not yours.

Instagram, TikTok, X (Twitter), YouTube, Facebook, Telegram, WhatsApp, Snapchat and Reddit, plus Google Search de-indexing where the content qualifies under Google's legal or personal-information policies. Something else? If the platform publishes an official route, we can usually file it.

Clear impersonation and leaked-media matters can close in days — sometimes hours on the NCII routes. Defamation and legal-basis matters typically run weeks and may need an appeal round or two. The free assessment includes a realistic range for your specific case, not a brochure number.

Single filings start around $129, priority matters around $299, and standing brand protection is arranged monthly. Every engagement is quoted exactly, in writing, before you commit — the full breakdown is on the rate card.

A first refusal is common and frequently wrong — front-line review is fast, not careful. We appeal with sharper exhibits and the original reference numbers. If every official route is genuinely spent, we close the file and tell you plainly what remains, including fallbacks like Google de-indexing when the source page won't move.

Standard policy reports don't name the reporter — the account holder sees only that content was removed for a violation. Legal routes such as DMCA do include the claimant's details by design. We flag exactly what the other side would see before you approve any filing, so there are no surprises.

No. If content is merely unflattering but violates nothing, no honest service can remove it — and we decline the filing. You hear that at intake, free, instead of after an invoice. It's the least glamorous thing we do and the most important.

You can, and for a single obvious violation you sometimes should — the briefings explain the self-serve routes. People hire us when their reports have already bounced, when the right route isn't obvious, when evidence spans dozens of posts, or when the matter is urgent enough that a mis-filed first attempt would cost weeks.