Europol flags 4,340 'horrific' URLs linked to The Com 72%

7/24/2026, 8:20:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 51.5% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,817 faulty-reasoning hits from 456 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,326 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.10% of the article peer group.

Europol and its partners' investigators flagged 4,340 “horrific” URLs for removal over several weeks in June and July as part of an ongoing crackdown on The Com (short for community), a loosely knit network of online groups whose young members participate in a range of illicit activities. 
These range from hacking, swatting, and digital extortion to real-life shootings, stabbings, and other physical violence. 
Europol’s recent Referral Action Days, aimed at disrupting The Com’s online ecosystem and stopping the spread of its propaganda, is part of the larger Project Compass operation. 
Project Compass began in 2025, and its partner law-enforcement agencies span the US, UK, and EU member states. 
Investigators from Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden participated in the Referral Action Days during June and July. 
Various groups linked to The Com post content online to recruit members and groom young victims using social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps. 
“The more extreme and harmful the content a user or group can produce or extort, the higher their status within the online community,” according to Europol. 
“These acts are often livestreamed on social media platforms, where online bystanders cheer them on, and later saved and disseminated.” 
The URLs flagged for removal during this latest push to disrupt The Com’s recruiting activities included “violent videos and images depicting self-harm, suicide, child sexual abuse material (CSAM), animal cruelty, and violent attacks,” the international cops said. 
This, the European cops say, includes so-called blood walls, which are paintings made with blood that display the extorter’s alias and group affiliation, and cut-signs, where the victims are forced to carve the extorter’s name into their bodies. 
It also includes videos of street attacks and arson, plus manuals on how to commit these violent attacks, along with instructions on grooming and extorting vulnerable minors, and conducting doxxing and swatting. 
Europol says its European Counter Terrorism Centre has received “hundreds” of requests from member states and others over the past two years to help investigate crimes linked to The Com. 
It describes the online network as a “global threat, particularly concerning minors as both victims and perpetrators.” 
Last year, both the UK and US issued similar warnings about a subset of The Com that recruits children and teens for contract shootings, kidnappings, and other real-life violent crimes. 
In July 2025, the FBI said that In Real Life (IRL) Com had become increasingly brazen in its swat-for-hire and violence-as-a-service solicitations. 
The FBI's alert followed a similar notice from the UK National Crime Agency about a "deeply concerning" trend of The Com recruiting teenage boys to commit a range of criminal acts, from cyber fraud and ransomware to child sexual abuse. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.1%The Register: 3.3%Confirmation Bias19.1%This article: 5.9%The Register: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 18.6%The Register: 3.2%Availability Heuristic18.6%This article: 5.0%The Register: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 5.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%The Register: 2.6%Pessimism Bias8.6%This article: 39.0%The Register: 8.2%Negativity Bias39.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%The Register: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.3%This article: 5.7%The Register: 1.4%Halo Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 26.8%The Register: 1.9%Recency Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 51.5%The Register: 4.2%Appeal to Authority51.5%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 37.3%The Register: 6.2%Hasty Generalization37.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 43.6%The Register: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion43.6%This article: 5.7%The Register: 0.9%Begging the Question5.7%This article: 10.7%The Register: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%The Register: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.5%The Register: 0.3%Composition/Division3.5%This article: 12.7%The Register: 2.2%Anecdotal12.7%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.1%The Register: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.1%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.3%The Register: 2.3%Unattributed Quote30.3%This article: 10.3%The Register: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection10.3%This article: 29.2%The Register: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice29.2%This article: 5.3%The Register: 1.5%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Register: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

456 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech388writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageEuropol • 26 words • 100.0% coverageEuropol • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

FBI

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words32% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+82.0 ptsWriter: 18.0%FBI: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%FBI: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%FBI: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%FBI: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.