Our method

Every safety claim needs a named level of evidence.

We divide claims into four categories: a provider’s published rule, a technical control described by the provider, an observed result under a stated test, and our editorial judgment. The first two can be documented by public text. The third needs a real audit. The fourth should explain its reasoning without masquerading as a fact.

Sources and dates

We attribute the EroLove Terms and Privacy notice by document title and last check date, without linking readers to the product. We link to official regulators for their general requirements and guidance. The site does not assert that an adult-AI service falls under a particular jurisdiction merely because a regulator publishes guidance.

Strong criticism, precise limits

We think an adults-only AI service should make entry controls, prohibited-content enforcement and reporting outcomes intelligible. We criticize missing public evidence. We do not turn uncertainty into an allegation that EroLove has hosted illegal material, harmed children, failed an age check or committed fraud. A reader can still decide the unresolved questions are reason enough to abstain.

Publication

Five reviewed investigations accompany launch. Five additional pieces are prepared and remain inaccessible until one weekly release becomes due after the verified formal-domain launch. Editorial approval is bound to final article text. A scheduled date alone does not publish an unreviewed draft. We correct material errors rather than silently changing a byline or date.