"They also appeared to be funding reports to justify it."
The "human rights analyses" they use to justify it substantially underplay the potential harmfulness of it.
One of the most glaring parts of it, apart from just being very underwhelming, is that it assumes that these platforms are well-behaved actors (and not actors who overwhelmingly act on frivolous grounds). They're not.
It fails to properly challenge these platforms, indeed, it doesn't seem to operate from that angle at all.
It is unclear what the scope of this platform is at all, indeed, rather vague language is used, and you are supposed to just assume it is used against "bad things". However, there is (still rather tortured) language which contradicts this narrative in some areas.
As mentioned before, there are also questions of due process, freedom of expression, and privacy. A cartel means that stupid ideas (or systemic bias / mistakes) have a tendency of being amplified.
That is my "human rights analysis" from a more critical angle.
The information sharing platform also appears to be operated by Facebook which means that not small amounts of personal information are likely to be non-consensually processed by Facebook (even if you don't use any of their services).