Parks and recreation wants an AI to post autonomously to social channels. What safety gating best fits before that goes live?

Disabling autonomous social posts from a parks-and-recreation AI that failed toxicity and misinformation checks is the safety gate that belongs before live autonomous publishing: public channels amplify harmful or false content at civic scale. The correct control works because autonomy is a privilege earned after safety criteria pass; failure means the system must remain human-mediated or offline for posting until remediated, not merely watched after the fact. Enabling autonomous social posts after toxicity screening validates parks tone and readability targets fails conceptually because tone and readability targets are brand or quality controls, not safety results; they do not prove the system passed toxicity and misinformation checks and therefore cannot substitute for the required pre-launch safety gate. Monitoring autonomous social posts through weekly toxicity audits and misinformation correction reviews fails as reactive governance—audits and correction reviews arrive after publication, so they cannot prevent harmful or false posts from reaching the public before go-live. Limiting autonomous social posts to park updates after passing data privacy screening checks fails because data privacy screening does not evaluate toxicity or misinformation, and narrowing scope to park updates does not block harmful or false content; it does not establish the required pre-launch gate. Exam caveat: disabling autonomous posting does not require abandoning AI drafting; human-approved publish queues can still use AI assistance while autonomy remains blocked. Operational check: define pass/fail thresholds for toxicity and misinformation evaluations, wire them as a hard CI or release gate, keep autonomous publish flags off until green, and re-test after any model or prompt change before re-enabling parks social autonomy.