Transparency Report

This first reporting period

1. Why we publish this report

• Accountability: users have a right to know how the decisions that affect their accounts are made.
• Preventing abuse: publishing the number of official requests creates a counterweight to overly broad requests.
• Auditing ourselves: measuring appeal outcomes is what lets us see our own moderation mistakes.
• Regulatory compliance: rules such as the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) encourage transparency reporting; we are moving towards that framework voluntarily.

2. Scope and period

Reporting period

From the platform's public launch to 28 July 2026.

Products covered

The iOS, Android, macOS and Windows apps and the aurcam.com web interface.

Publication frequency

Every six months. Next report: January 2027.

Data source

The moderation audit log and the legal request register.

3. Content moderation

Moderation starts in one of two ways: user reports and automated pre-flagging. Automated systems only flag; heavier enforcement such as closing an account requires human review.

The metrics we measure

• Number of user reports (by category: harassment, spam, adult content, child safety, copyright, other).
• Number of items of content removed and the distribution of removal reasons.
• Enforcement actions applied: warning, content removal, feature restriction, temporary suspension, permanent closure.
• The ratio of automated flagging to human review.
• Average time to first response.

This period

As the platform is still at an early stage, there is no meaningful aggregate figure to publish. The moderation infrastructure and the audit log system are operational; the full table will be shared in the next period.

4. Appeals

Every enforcement decision can be appealed. Appeals are reviewed by a human moderator who is not the person who made the decision. The metrics we measure:

• Number of appeals and their distribution by type of enforcement action.
• The share of appeals upheld — this is the indicator of our error rate.
• Average time to resolve an appeal (target: 7 days).

There is no point in hiding the share of appeals upheld: a high figure shows that our moderation thresholds are too aggressive, and we adjust them accordingly.

5. Official information and removal requests

We record requests for user data and requests for content removal that come from public authorities, and we publish their aggregate numbers. The metrics we measure:

Number of data requests

By requesting country; number of accounts affected.

Share of requests met in part or in full

Requests met after their scope was narrowed are stated separately.

Requests refused

Requests found to have an insufficient legal basis or to be overly broad.

Content removal requests

Legal basis and distribution of outcomes.

Share of requests where the user was notified

We inform the user wherever we are not legally prevented from doing so.

This period

In this reporting period no requests for user data have been received from public authorities and no content removal order has been received. This section will be updated when such a request arrives.

6. Copyright notices

We record the notices, counter-notices and outcomes received under the Copyright and DMCA process:

• Number of infringement notices received and the share found valid.
• Number of items of content removed.
• Number of counter-notices and number of items of content restored.
• Number of accounts closed for repeat infringement.
• Number of notices refused as being made in bad faith.

This period

No copyright infringement notice has been processed in this period.

7. Personal data breach notifications

In the event of a personal data breach we inform the relevant supervisory authority and the users affected as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 33–34 of the GDPR and with KVKK requirements.

8. Our approach to official requests

1. Valid legal process required: we only consider requests that are properly made, in writing and legally binding. We do not act on informal requests.
2. Scope review: we send overly broad requests back to be narrowed.
3. Minimum data: we disclose only data within the scope of the request; we do not comply with “send everything” requests.
4. Notifying the user: unless there is a legal bar (a confidentiality order or similar), we inform the user whose data has been requested.
5. Emergencies: where there is a risk of imminent death or serious physical harm, we act without delay to save life and record the incident afterwards.
6. Logging: every request is entered in the register and published in aggregate in this report.

9. Methodology and limitations

• The figures are taken directly from the moderation audit log and the legal request register; they are not adjusted by hand.
• Where a piece of content was removed for more than one reason, the primary reason is used — which is why the category totals may not add up to the overall total.
• Multiple reports about the same user are counted as a single incident.
• Content deleted by the user themselves is not included in this report; only content removed by a moderation decision is counted.
• For metrics where we cannot produce a figure we do not give an estimate; we state “no data”.

You can send suggestions about the scope of this report to legal@aurcam.com. Tell us which metrics you would like us to add.