LOS ANGELES — February 18, 2026 (The Oklahoma Post)
Today’s digital public square is governed by private platforms and when those platforms fumble their responsibility, the consequences hit real lives. The Oklahoma Post, an independent investigative outlet, has reached a breaking point with Meta (Facebook). On February 1, 2026, The Oklahoma Post served Meta with a formal legal notice demanding public and legal accountability. The notice details how Meta imposed arbitrary content restrictions on the outlet without cause or explanation, provided no due process for appeal, and even interfered tortiously with the outlet’s operations and audience. In plainer terms: Facebook sidelined a news organization for no clear reason, undercutting its work and business all while truly harmful content on the platform goes unchecked. This article examines The Oklahoma Post’s case as a microcosm of a broader crisis in content moderation and calls for urgent reform. It’s written with the calm, fact-driven resolve of a seasoned attorney and a pinch of dry humor at the absurdities we uncover along the way.
The Oklahoma Post vs. Meta: Anatomy of an Arbitrary Restriction
The Oklahoma Post isn’t a fly-by-night blog; it’s a nonprofit independent media outlet dedicated to public-interest journalism. Its mission is to uphold “freedom, due process, government transparency, and free speech”, often tackling tough issues from family court reform to political accountability. Yet despite no violation of Facebook’s Community Standards, the outlet found its Facebook page repeatedly throttled and restricted. Posts were hidden from followers, sharing features disabled, and traffic plummeted all without any specific explanation or valid cause. According to the February 1 legal notice, these platform actions were “undertaken without warning or rationale, reflecting a stark lack of due process” for The Oklahoma Post. In the letter, the outlet’s counsel argues that Meta’s unwarranted censorship “constitutes tortious interference” with The Oklahoma Post’s business and its duty to inform the public. In other words, Facebook’s arbitrary clampdown directly harmed a news organization’s operations a serious allegation that goes beyond a typical content dispute.
To appreciate the gravity, consider the principles at stake. Due process, a concept usually reserved for courts, means having a fair procedure to challenge decisions. The Oklahoma Post received nothing of the sort on Facebook no clear reason for the restrictions and no meaningful avenue to appeal. The content in question? By all indications, standard news and opinion pieces on matters of public interest, not disinformation or hate speech. The lack of transparency and recourse left the journalists effectively gagged by an algorithmic judge, jury, and executioner. This is what a modern-day Star Chamber looks like except it’s run by a social media behemoth. The formal notice put Meta on alert that such actions are unacceptable and unlawful, demanding that the restrictions be lifted and policies reformed to ensure fairness going forward.
Key Issues Raised in The Oklahoma Post’s Notice:
- Arbitrary Enforcement: Meta imposed content limitations with no clear violation or consistent standard, suggesting the use of faulty algorithms or biased flagging.
- Lack of Due Process: The Oklahoma Post was not given notice or a chance to contest the restrictions through a fair process. Decisions were made opaquely and upheld without explanation – a stark contrast to the basic fairness expected in any dispute.
- Tortious Interference: By cutting off The Oklahoma Post’s reach and revenue streams (from readership and potential donors/advertisers), Meta’s actions harmed the outlet’s business relationships and mission, potentially meeting the legal definition of interfering with a business expectancy.
The tone of the letter is calm, precise language. It cites chapter and verse: policy terms, legal precedents, and constitutional values. And it doesn’t just complain; it demands remedial action. The Oklahoma Post is effectively telling Meta: follow your own rules fairly, or face legal consequences.
Profit in Plain Sight: Zuckerberg’s Own Words
In a recent public post tied to Meta’s Q4 2025 earnings call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg celebrated what he described as strong business performance. He noted that more than 3.5 billion people now use at least one of Meta’s apps every day, including more than 2 billion daily active users each on Facebook and WhatsApp, and just shy of that number on Instagram. He credited record-breaking holiday demand and AI-driven performance gains as contributors to that growth. Meta’s Q4 2025 revenue came in at $48.39 billion for the quarter, representing roughly 21 percent year-over-year growth, capping a record-breaking fiscal year.
Those are not neutral metrics. They are revenue indicators. More engagement means more ad impressions. More impressions mean more advertiser spending. And more advertiser spending means higher quarterly earnings. Zuckerberg’s message was clear: Meta is accelerating. AI is scaling. The business is performing.
This creates a tension central to the accountability debate. When a platform’s financial success is directly tied to engagement volume, the incentive structure becomes obvious. Engagement drives profit. Controversy drives engagement. High-volume content drives engagement. Investigative journalism that challenges local power structures does not always fit that model.
The question is not whether Meta is allowed to make money. It is whether the same systems optimized for growth are also capable of consistently protecting minors, removing exploitative content, and applying moderation standards fairly. Zuckerberg’s own figures underscore the scale of Meta’s reach and the scale of its responsibility.
The Call That Should Not Have Been Necessary: A Father’s Desperate Report
Among the most troubling elements of this case is a recorded phone call between a father we will identify here only as Thomas, to protect the identities of the minors involved, and an Athens-Clarke County Police officer identified in the recording as Officer Ellison. The call documents a father attempting, once again, to get law enforcement to take seriously a collection of evidence he describes as both publicly accessible and deeply criminal.
Thomas, calling from his home in Minnesota, walked Officer Ellison through what he had found on a Facebook page operating under the name Mac Ray McElroy. The page contained videos he believed showed the sexual abuse of minors, including one video dated June 19, 2017, in which his son, referred to here as Connor, then a minor, was allegedly instructed to participate in a sexual act involving another child and an adult male. Thomas identified the adult in the video by name through a caption on the post itself. He also expressed concern that another minor, his daughter, may have been present in the same video.
What makes the call significant in the context of this article is not only what Thomas reported, but what he documented about the institutional response, or the absence of one. He told the officer that the local police chief had blocked him personally. He explained that the material had never been entered before the court in Connor’s criminal case because, as Thomas stated plainly, it would not have been in the interest of the prosecution to surface evidence of child abuse that predated and potentially contextualized Connor’s mental deterioration. He described a South Carolina medical facility where Connor was treated for a drug overdose, where a physician was told directly by Connor that Ray McElroy had been supplying him with drugs, and where no report to authorities followed. He described the judge who presided over Connor’s criminal case and noted that evidence of the prior abuse was never meaningfully placed before the court. Connor ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.
Officer Ellison listened to all of it. He reviewed the video during the call and stated on the recording that it was “obviously concerning.” He confirmed he would file a report, submit a preservation request to Facebook to freeze the account content, and forward the matter to the department’s Special Victims Unit. He also confirmed something Thomas had been saying for years: after checking the records in real time, no prior report of child abuse involving Connor had ever been filed with the Athens-Clarke County Police Department.
That confirmation, spoken by a law enforcement officer reviewing the records during the call itself, is one of the most consequential moments in the transcript. A father spent years insisting his son had been abused, drugged, and failed by every institution that encountered him. A patrol officer confirmed, in a single sentence, that no one had ever filed a report. Not a physician. Not a judge. Not a child protective services worker. Not the court. No one.
The Facebook content Thomas described in that call, including the video he says has been publicly accessible since at least 2017, was still live at the time the call was made. This is not a case where Meta’s moderation systems were tested in a close call and fell short. This is a case where a father found material depicting what he credibly described as child sexual abuse on a public Facebook page, reported it to law enforcement while the officer watched it in real time and called it concerning, and the account remained active. The preservation request Officer Ellison described, the standard law enforcement mechanism for freezing digital evidence ahead of a search warrant, is meaningful precisely because without it the content could disappear. It should not have still been there to preserve.
Thomas described Connor being administered a powerful long-acting antipsychotic injection as a teenager, a drug prescribed without the informed consent of his father, and continued even as Connor reported the abuse to medical providers who did not believe him. Rather than investigating the abuse, the institutions surrounding Connor medicated the symptoms it produced. Thomas stated that Connor had never once received a counseling session before the injections began. He had never been given the opportunity to tell his story in court. He remains in prison today.
Taken together, what the transcript documents is not a single failure but a cascading sequence of them: a physician who did not report, a court that did not hear the evidence, a police department whose leadership blocked a parent, a platform that left the content publicly accessible for years, and a prosecution that moved forward without examining what may have been the most significant context in the entire case.
Thomas summarized it with the exhausted clarity of someone who has been saying the same thing for a very long time: nobody questioned me, nobody talked to me, and no one would listen when I said my son was being abused.
That call, and everything it documents, is precisely why platform accountability and institutional accountability are not separate conversations. They are the same conversation. When Facebook leaves evidence of child sexual abuse online for years, it does not merely fail a content moderation standard. It actively enables every subsequent institutional failure that follows, because the evidence that could have forced action remains accessible only to the people willing to go looking for it themselves, while the institutions with the power to act look the other way.
The failure to communicate with victims’ families was not unique to the McElroy matter. It was, in fact, a documented and repeated pattern under former Western Judicial Circuit District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, who held the office during the period most relevant to Connor’s case. Gonzalez’s office was found to have violated Marsy’s Law, Georgia’s constitutionally enshrined Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, four times in two years, with the fourth violation confirmed by court order in September 2024. Digital Content Next The violations documented across those cases share a common thread with what Thomas described in the recorded police call: families who requested notification in writing, who provided valid contact information, and who were nonetheless left out of proceedings that directly affected them. In one confirmed case, a superior court found that Gonzalez’s office made inaccurate statements to the court claiming they had attempted to contact victims when they had in fact made no such attempt. KSL Gonzalez lost her reelection bid in November 2024 to independent candidate Kalki Yalamanchili, who now serves as the current Western Judicial Circuit DA. As of the publication of this article, neither the Gonzalez administration nor the current DA’s office has communicated with Thomas or his family regarding the evidence presented to law enforcement or the broader pattern of alleged abuse documented in this reporting. The question of platform accountability and the question of prosecutorial accountability are, in this case, the same question asked from two different directions. Both lead back to the same unanswered demand: someone with authority must look at what is in front of them and act. Facebook took their campaign money and allowed for the silencing of families that expected intervention.
A Disturbing Double Standard: Harmful Content Thrives While Journalism Suffers
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this case is the sheer irony. While The Oklahoma Post was reined in for no evident wrongdoing, egregiously harmful content has been allowed to fester on Meta’s platforms. A Facebook account belonging to a man identified as Ray McElroy allegedly shared videos and images of abusive sexual content, including sex acts involving unconscious individuals. In at least one video, a minor referred to here only as Josh, a name used to protect the child’s identity, was present in the room while these acts occurred. This is not borderline content. It is the sort of graphic, exploitative material that unequivocally violates Facebook’s standards and the law. The posts were allowed to stand for years. The Oklahoma Post staff reported McElroy’s content through the proper channels. As of this writing, McElroy’s account remains active, even amid hundreds of counts of distribution of drugs to minors resulting in deaths. Meanwhile, The Oklahoma Post’s factual reporting was being muzzled. McElroy’s alleged conduct falls under prosecutorial jurisdiction in Athens-Clarke, Oglethorpe, and Oconee Counties in Georgia, and because the activity involved online dissemination and possible interstate elements, federal jurisdiction may likewise be implicated.
It is a jarring contrast. On one side, an independent newspaper gets the hammer for unclear reasons. On the other, a user posting what amounts to evidence of sexual assault and child endangerment gets a pass. One might be tempted to find dark humor here: perhaps Meta’s moderation AI was too busy playing whack-a-mole with news articles to notice actual criminality on the platform. The scenario would almost be satirical if real lives were not impacted.
McElroy’s case is not just an anecdote. It fits a documented, verified pattern that is now being litigated in two separate courtrooms simultaneously. In the New Mexico trial, which opened February 9, 2026, state prosecutors presented newly unsealed internal Meta documents showing that company researchers had predicted that child exploitation events were occurring on the platform at a rate of approximately half a million instances per day. Prosecutors built part of their case through an undercover investigation in which investigators posed as children online and documented the sexual solicitations that followed. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez described the platforms as the largest online marketplace for predators seeking to exploit children in the world. Meta disputes the characterization and contends that the state’s investigation was ethically compromised. But the internal documents, produced by Meta’s own employees, are harder to dismiss.
At a U.S. Senate hearing on online child exploitation, it was also revealed that reports of child sexual abuse material had exploded tenfold over the past decade, reaching 100,000 daily reports by 2023, as Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin stated in his opening remarks. Yet amid this flood of harmful content, Meta’s moderation systems often seem pointed at the wrong targets. The house is on fire, and the alarms are going off in the newsroom instead of the crime scene.
Broader Trends: Lawsuits, Hearings, and a Reckoning at Meta
The Oklahoma Post’s battle comes amid what can only be described as an historic convergence of legal accountability for Meta’s content practices. For the first time in the company’s history, two simultaneous jury trials are now underway, one in Los Angeles and one in Santa Fe, both centered on Meta’s alleged failure to protect children.
In Los Angeles, the landmark trial has Zuckerberg testifying before a jury for the first time, in a case brought by a plaintiff identified as Kaley, a 20-year-old woman and her mother, who allege that Meta knowingly designed addictive algorithms that hooked her as a child, contributing to depression and self-harm. TikTok and Snap have already settled claims in the Los Angeles proceeding, leaving Meta and YouTube as the two remaining defendants. Zuckerberg’s company vehemently denies the allegations, but the very fact that he has been forced to answer questions under oath before a jury is without precedent.
In Santa Fe, the New Mexico trial represents the first stand-alone case brought by state prosecutors against Meta over child sexual exploitation to reach a jury. New Mexico AG Raúl Torrez filed the suit in December 2023 after an undercover investigation in which his office set up accounts modeled after children and documented the resulting predator contact. The trial is expected to run seven weeks, and if the jury sides with the state, financial penalties could reach into the billions, with the possibility of court-ordered changes to how Meta’s platforms operate. Meta’s defense team has argued that the state’s investigation was methodologically compromised and that the company has long been committed to child safety, but prosecutors countered in opening statements that internal memos show executives were aware of the exploitation problem for years and chose growth over protection.
Beyond these two trials, a bipartisan coalition of 42 state attorneys general, including Oklahoma’s, has sued Meta for allegedly harming youth mental health on a massive scale. The accusations read like a parent’s nightmare: that Meta knowingly designed and deployed harmful features on Facebook and Instagram to addict children, all while misleading the public about the risks. As New York AG Letitia James stated plainly, Meta has profited from children’s pain and must be held accountable.
At a Senate hearing in January 2024, Zuckerberg faced a bipartisan grilling unlike anything seen before a tech CEO. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina held up photos of teens lost to online-fueled tragedies and told him directly: “You have blood on your hands. You have a product that’s killing people.” Zuckerberg eventually stood and apologized to grieving parents seated in the hearing room, an extraordinary moment of public contrition. But apologies without structural change are just words, and the persistence of two simultaneous jury trials in February 2026 suggests the structural change has not yet arrived.
Meta’s pattern, critics say, is talking the talk but not walking the walk. After each scandal there are press releases and new initiatives. To its credit, Meta has introduced some reforms, including steps to restrict certain content for teen users and implement age verification. But the proof is in outcomes. The company’s recent history also shows a willingness to retaliate against accountability measures rather than comply with them. When Canada passed a law in 2023 requiring Big Tech to pay news publishers for their content, Meta’s response was not to negotiate but to block all news on Facebook and Instagram in Canada entirely, a move that dealt a severe blow to the Canadian media ecosystem, drastically affecting audiences and undermining the financial stability of many publications. Faced with accountability, Meta chose to choke off journalism. That is the backdrop against which The Oklahoma Post’s legal notice was written, and it underscores a worrying truth: without external rules and consequences, a platform can silence the very voices that hold it accountable.
Campaign Spending Without Competition: A Transparency Question
According to publicly available campaign finance filings, District Attorney Laura Austin Thomas reported approximately $50,000 in expenditures to Facebook during her election cycle. Public records also reflect that she did not face an opponent in that election.
If only a limited number of Facebook advertisements were publicly visible during the campaign, reportedly three or four, then the obvious question becomes: how was the full $50,000 allocated?
Digital political spending can include targeted ad placements not visible to all users, boosted posts, consulting or media strategy services tied to the platform, data targeting and demographic segmentation, and payment processing and platform service fees. However, the filings themselves should clarify the breakdown.
Under Oklahoma Ethics Commission rules, candidate committees are required to file Contribution and Expenditure Reports on a quarterly basis, with each expenditure exceeding $200 requiring documentation of the recipient’s name and address. Those filings are public record and accessible through the Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s Guardian disclosure system. If the reported expenditures to Facebook are itemized in those quarterly filings, they can and should be examined line by line. If the itemization is vague or aggregated in a way that obscures what services were actually rendered, that is itself a disclosure concern worth raising formally with the Ethics Commission.
Facebook also maintains its own Ad Library, a publicly searchable database of all political advertisements run on its platform. Under Meta’s political advertising transparency policy, any ad classified as relating to social issues, elections, or politics must be disclosed and archived. If the volume of publicly visible ads does not correspond to the reported spending, that discrepancy is searchable and documentable through Meta’s own tools, without relying on any single source’s account.
When a candidate runs unopposed, campaign spending shifts from persuasion to narrative control. In that context, transparency matters even more.
This concern is amplified in Payne County, where high-profile criminal matters including the Jesse Butler case and the Seth Swaim case generated extensive media coverage and online engagement. Those cases drew significant public attention and, in some instances, substantial digital traffic and monetization across platforms. Where public safety cases generate online engagement and political visibility, financial incentives and narrative control intersect.
The intersection is not hypothetical. A district attorney’s office controls charging decisions, press statements, and the timing of public information releases. When the same officeholder is also spending heavily on a platform that shapes how those cases are perceived publicly, the question of whether that spending is being used to manage narrative around active prosecutions is a legitimate one. It does not require an allegation of wrongdoing to ask it. It only requires the basic civic instinct that public officials should be able to show their work.
For families with minor children living under the jurisdiction of that same district attorney, including my own two children, the stakes are not theoretical. They are personal.
These situations, this article, is a call for transparency and clarity in how public-facing narratives, campaign spending, and platform economics interact. Public trust is strengthened by documentation, not assumptions. The Oklahoma Ethics Commission’s public records system and Meta’s Ad Library together provide the tools to answer these questions. The question is whether anyone in a position of authority will use them.
Reform or Regression: The Path Forward
Where does this leave us? The Oklahoma Post’s case is a clarion call for platform reform, not just for one outlet, but for the principles of transparency, safety, and free expression online. At minimum, Meta needs to institute clear and consistent content moderation standards, robust appeal and due process mechanisms for users including news organizations who are restricted, and proactive removal of truly harmful content, especially that which endangers minors. These are not radical asks. They are the digital age equivalent of do no harm. When a platform’s choices can make or break a business or expose a child to abuse, the expectation is that the platform act responsibly.
It is encouraging that Meta has an Oversight Board. It is less encouraging that, according to the Board’s own transparency reports, nearly 42 percent of its policy recommendations to Meta were either declined, still awaiting implementation, or otherwise not acted upon as of late 2023. The Board itself has acknowledged being unable to access the algorithmic data it would need to fully evaluate how Meta’s automated enforcement systems work. An oversight body that cannot see inside the machine it is supposed to oversee is oversight in name only.
Will we continue to see cases like Ray McElroy’s, where vulnerable users are left dangerously unprotected by systemic failures? Will legitimate journalists keep getting caught in the net of false-positive moderation? Or will Meta take this moment, under legal fire from two simultaneous jury trials and public scrutiny from half the country’s attorneys general, to truly change course? As a start, the company could respond in good faith to The Oklahoma Post’s legal notice: restore the outlet’s account capabilities, explain what happened, and institute safeguards so it does not happen again. Broader changes will take longer. Retooling algorithms, hiring more human moderators with better training, and adjusting incentive structures that currently prioritize engagement over safety are hard and expensive fixes. But the alternative is a social media ecosystem where children are exploited in plain sight, truth-tellers are muzzled, and accountability is someone else’s problem.
In a climactic scene last year, a U.S. Senator asked Mark Zuckerberg if he would like to apologize to the families whose children were harmed. He stood and did so, saying that no one should have to go through what those families suffered. It was a humane moment. But real accountability is not a PR soundbite or a one-time courtroom gesture. It is an ongoing commitment to do right by the people who rely on these platforms, including the teenagers being pulled into harmful rabbit holes and the scrappy local news outlets sounding alarms that the public needs to hear.
The stakes could not be higher. Civil rights in the digital sphere, the right to speak and to be heard without arbitrary silencing, are at stake. The future of investigative journalism, which increasingly depends on online platforms to reach its audience, is at stake. And ultimately, the lives and well-being of real people, especially children, who suffer when profit or negligence trumps safety, are at stake. The Oklahoma Post’s fight is not just its own. It is about reclaiming a social media environment where justice, safety, and truth are not lofty ideals but daily practice. Meta, the ball is in your court.
Civil Rights, Journalism, and Digital Justice
In a climactic scene of public drama last year, a U.S. Senator looked at Mark Zuckerberg and asked if he’d like to apologize to the families whose children were harmed. Zuckerberg, to his credit, did apologize “No one should have to go through what your families have suffered,” he said. It was a humane moment. But apologies, however sincere, are just words if not followed by action. Real accountability is not a PR soundbite or a one-time courtroom testimony; it is an ongoing commitment to do right by the people who rely on these platforms. That includes the teenagers being sucked into harmful rabbit holes, and it includes the scrappy local news outlets sounding the alarm on issues that matter.
The stakes could not be higher. What’s at stake is civil rights in the digital sphere the right to speak, to be heard, to not be arbitrarily silenced. What’s at stake is the future of investigative journalism, which increasingly depends on online platforms to reach its audience. And what’s at stake, ultimately, are the lives and well-being of real people, especially children, who suffer when profit or negligence trumps safety. If Meta and the public by extension can learn anything from The Oklahoma Post’s fight, it’s that these issues are interconnected. The lack of due process for a journalist today is the same ecosystem that allows abuse to slip through tomorrow. Conversely, building a fairer, more accountable platform will uplift both the First Amendment warriors and the vulnerable kids who deserve a safer digital playground.
Meta, do better. Enforce your rules, but do it with consistency and fairness. Protect the Youth of the world with the same zeal you apparently showed in punishing The Oklahoma Post and other outlets reporting factual content. Open up your black-box algorithms to some sunlight, and give users a transparent path to justice when you get it wrong. The public shouldn’t have to rely on lawsuits and legal notices to guarantee basic fairness, but if that’s what it takes, so be it. As we close, perhaps a touch of reflection is apt: it’s a strange world where a news outlet has to fight a trillion-dollar company for the right to report the truth, but here we are. The silver lining is that people are fighting back from local journalists to state Attorneys General to everyday parents. The message is clear, even if delivered with a wry smile: We see the harm, and we won’t stay silent. Digital accountability is the new frontier for civil rights and consumer protection, and it’s high time the guardians of our online spaces face the music. The Oklahoma Post’s stand is ultimately about all of us, about reclaiming a social media environment where justice, safety, and truth aren’t just lofty ideals, but daily practice. The ball, Meta, is in your court.
Writing By: Macey Tedford| Editing by Robbie Robertson
Editor’s Note:
Sources
The Oklahoma Post legal notice to Meta Platforms, Inc. (February 1, 2026).
K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court (bellwether trial, testimony February 18, 2026). Reported by CNN, NBC News, AP, Chicago Tribune, Fox Business, and CNBC.
State of New Mexico v. Meta Platforms, Inc., First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe (trial opened February 9, 2026). Reported by AP, Source New Mexico, CNBC, and the New Mexico Department of Justice press release (December 2023).
Meta Platforms Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript (January 2026), via Investing.com and Storyboard18. Zuckerberg remarks on 3.5 billion daily users and record holiday revenue.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, “Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis” (January 31, 2024). Statements by Chairman Dick Durbin and Senator Lindsey Graham. Reported by ABC News and multiple outlets.
New York v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (October 2023). Multistate coalition of 42 attorneys general. Press release from New York Attorney General Letitia James.
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez press release, “Attorney General Torrez Files Lawsuit Against Meta Platforms and Mark Zuckerberg to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse and Human Trafficking” (December 2023), nmdoj.gov.
Médianes (2023) report on Meta’s Canada news ban, August 2023. Also reported by Reuters and the Canadian Journalism Foundation.
Oklahoma Ethics Commission, Guardian Disclosure System (public record, searchable at ethics.ok.gov).
Meta Ad Library (ads.meta.com), political advertising transparency database.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a January 2024 Senate hearing on social media’s role in child exploitation. Lawmakers from both parties blasted Meta’s “constant pursuit of profit over safety,” underscoring the urgency of reform.
Recorded police call, Thomas and Officer Ellison, Athens-Clarke County Police Department (date of call per transcript). Full transcript on file with The Oklahoma Post. Names of reporting party and minors replaced with pseudonyms per publication policy.
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2026 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2026 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
