01
We begin with the person, not just the file
Behind every case is a real person trying to regain control of a difficult situation. That matters to us.
Digital Rights Commission
Independent review and support for people facing serious online abuse.
Helping people make sense of online harm.
When someone is being harassed, exposed, impersonated, or pushed into a harmful digital situation, the experience can feel messy very fast. Our role is to slow things down, organise the facts, and respond with structure, care, and professionalism.
Who we are
Independent
We are non governmental and separate from courts, police, and platform companies.
How we work
Structured
Every report moves through a clear path, from intake to review to final findings.
What people can expect
Clarity
We aim to explain decisions in plain language, without confusion or unnecessary legal theatre.
About us
A serious commission with a calm and human approach.
People often reach out when a situation has already become overwhelming. Screenshots are everywhere, messages are piling up, and nobody seems to be listening properly. We exist to bring order to that moment. We listen carefully, organise the material, and explain what we see in a way that feels clear and grounded.
02
We turn scattered evidence into a readable case
Our job is to sort timelines, links, screenshots, usernames, and context into something coherent.
03
We communicate in plain language
We keep our writing professional, but still understandable. Serious work does not need robotic wording.
What the Commission does
We review reports of serious online harm, assess the material provided, identify patterns, and produce structured conclusions that can support further action, internal review, or record keeping.
What the Commission does not do
We are not a court, a law enforcement agency, or a government regulator. Our findings are not legally binding and do not replace formal legal procedures.
What we review
The main forms of digital harm we are built to assess.
Many cases overlap. A person may be dealing with harassment, impersonation, exposure, and platform failure at the same time. These categories help create structure, not limit the case.
DX
Doxxing
Private information is shared or threatened in a way that creates fear, pressure, or real safety concerns.
HR
Harassment
Repeated targeting, abusive messages, humiliation, or intimidation that goes beyond a single hostile moment.
IM
Impersonation
Someone uses a false identity or pretends to be another person to mislead others or cause harm.
AC
Account compromise
Unauthorised access, takeover, suspicious logins, or other serious interference with a person's account.
ST
Stalking risk
Patterns of monitoring, tracking, repeated contact, or digital behaviour that suggests escalation.
RA
Reputation attacks
Coordinated attempts to isolate, embarrass, discredit, or socially damage a person online.
PF
Platform failure
Cases where reporting tools, moderation systems, or response channels fail to address clear harm.
OT
Other serious harm
Some situations do not fit neatly into one label. We still review them with the same care and structure.
How it works
A simple process that keeps difficult cases organised.
People should not have to decode a maze just to be heard. Our case flow is designed to feel clear from the start.
01
Initial submission
The person explains what happened and shares the first set of evidence, context, or safety concerns.
02
Triage and case setup
We look at urgency, immediate risk, basic completeness, and whether the case needs quick protective attention.
03
Structured review
We assess timelines, usernames, source consistency, screenshots, links, and the wider pattern of behaviour.
04
Findings and next steps
We prepare a formal conclusion and explain what was found, what remains unclear, and what steps may follow.
Roles
The people and responsibilities behind the Commission.
Each role exists for a reason. Some focus on leadership, some on casework, and others on records, security, or public communication.
Leadership
Provides overall direction, signs off on major findings, and protects the standards of the Commission.
Leadership
Supports strategic coordination, internal oversight, and continuity across active casework.
Casework
Receives reports, checks the first details, and helps turn an initial message into a structured case entry.
Casework
Builds the factual timeline, reviews the evidence set, and identifies the key pattern behind the report.
Security
Looks at exposure, escalation risk, account safety, and the possibility of further harm.
Governance
Advises on wording, boundaries, and legal sensitivity so conclusions remain careful and disciplined.
Governance
Maintains record quality, file consistency, and the long term integrity of archived cases.
Public
Shapes official messaging, publication tone, and external communication standards.
Public
Supports the mission of the organisation and contributes to its overall standards and public trust.
FAQ
Clear answers to the most common questions.
No vague wording, no dramatic fluff, just the important basics.
No. The Digital Rights Commission is independent and non governmental. It is not a ministry, regulator, or public authority.
No. Our findings are structured organisational conclusions. They may support understanding and documentation, but they do not replace legal proceedings.
No. Some cases remain private, some may be restricted, and others may only be discussed in a limited internal format.
Dates, screenshots, usernames, links, platform references, and a short factual summary usually help much more than a long emotional description on its own.
Report
Start with the essentials.
Reports are rate limited. A two minute cooldown applies after each submission to reduce spam and repeated form abuse.
Helpful note
What usually makes a report stronger
Clear basics are better than a giant wall of text. Keep it readable. Keep it factual. Think less panic scroll, more solid case file.
- Include dates or rough timeframes where possible
- Add usernames, profile names, links, or account references
- Mention whether the behaviour happened once or repeatedly
- Share the main safety concern if there is one
- Use a real email address so follow up communication can actually happen