Papers › Putting the Count Back Into Accountability: An Analysis of Transparency Data About the...

Putting the Count Back Into Accountability: An Analysis of Transparency Data About the Sexual Exploitation of Minors

16 Feb 2024arXiv:2402.14625links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Robert Grimm

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Alarmist and sensationalist statements about the "explosion" of online child sexual exploitation or CSE dominate much of the public discourse about the topic. Based on a new dataset collecting the transparency disclosures for 16 US-based internet platforms and the national clearinghouse collecting legally mandated reports about CSE, this study seeks answers to two research questions: First, what does the data tell us about the growth of online CSE? Second, how reliable and trustworthy is that data? To answer the two questions, this study proceeds in three parts. First, we leverage a critical literature review to synthesize a granular model for CSE reporting. Second, we analyze the growth in CSE reports over the last 25 years and correlate it with the growth of social media user accounts. Third, we use two comparative audits to assess the quality of transparency data. Critical findings include: First, US law increasingly threatens the very population it claims to protect, i.e., children and adolescents. Second, the rapid growth of CSE report over the last decade is linear and largely driven by an equivalent growth in social media user accounts. Third, the Covid-19 pandemic had no statistically relevant impact on report volume. Fourth, while half of surveyed organizations release meaningful and reasonably accurate transparency data, the other half either fail to make disclosures or release data with severe quality issues.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 10 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from apparebit/diaphanous. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Datasets

Introduced by this paper, per the archive.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections