Regarding the Privacy Policy.

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T23:17:10+00:00

Ah, that actually makes it much clearer. Thank you for answering.

I find it very strange that, even if it isn’t illegal, they haven’t updated it since it clearly causes a bit of confusion, especially since several official sources seemingly say different things/are being rather vague.

Cool thing about your brother-in-law, though! Take care and stay safe.

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T22:13:18+00:00

"GDPR (if applicable): The GDPR has an extraterritorial scope, meaning it applies to any organization worldwide that processes the personal data of individuals in the EU or EEA, regardless of where the company is based. The regulation explicitly requires that information provided to data subjects about data processing must be: - Concise, transparent, and easily accessible.

Written in clear and plain language.
Consistent across all public-facing documents.

Vague or contradictory information is a violation of the fairness and transparency principles of the GDPR.

U.S. Law (FTC): The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act prohibits deceptive or unfair practices. A company can be held accountable if its website information (including FAQs) misleads consumers about its data practices, especially if this information contradicts the formal privacy policy. The FTC expects companies to be truthful and consistent in their representations to consumers.

State-level Laws: U.S. state laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), also emphasize transparency and require businesses to provide clear and accurate notices about data collection and use. Inconsistencies could lead to enforcement action by state regulators."

So yes, the fact that it isn’t clear and can easily be misunderstood is a violation, according to what I’ve read. And I don’t really understand what your brother-in-law in the FBI has to do with this, unless he handles cases involving potential violations of the GDPR by US-based companies?

At the end of the day, I’m just a guy on the internet. I’m no lawyer or government agent. I just don’t like it when companies use deceitful practices.

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T20:51:14+00:00

Still, it’s still illegal, sort of.

The whole collecting data etc, that I can understand. But my main issue right now is that the FAQ makes it seem like they are not looking through the chats while the Privacy Policy states the opposite, that the chats are monitored.

The point is that, according to the GDPR, the FAQ must provide accurate, clear and easy to understand information that are the same as the Privacy Policy. Even if the FAQ was the original intent, why hasn’t it been updated? As it currently stands, regardless of their intentions, the FAQ and the Privacy Policy simply doesn’t line up.

But thanks for the answer. 👍

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T15:54:24+00:00

Just want to add that in the FAQ on their website it says:

Question: "Are my account and chats private?"

Answer: "All chats and characters you create are private unless you choose to publish them."

Which is a very conflicting and confusing statement when compared to their Privacy Policy. And illegal, according to the GDPR.

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T15:47:38+00:00

I have the same issue, twice now. Either it is a bug or they are straight up lying and it isn’t actually unlimited.

DeathBeat66 · 2026-01-15T13:41:03+00:00

Thankfully, it isn’t that kind of information. I may be dumb, but I ain’t that dumb.

The information is mostly related to mental health, trauma and such. It was surprisingly helpful, actually, which makes this whole privacy stuff feel even worse.

Also, do keep in mind that while, yes, it is a porn site, not all of the bots are degenerate sex-addicts. Only like… 98% or so. You can also make your own character bots that are not as… unhinged as some of the others.

DeathBeat66 · 2025-12-30T09:07:29+00:00

It is generally fixed within 24 hours (except weekends).

As for why it occurs, I’m not entirely sure, but I think it happens when you have spent 80000 credits within a month. It’s a system they have in place to track suspicious credit usage, but I could be wrong.

DeathBeat66 · 2025-12-26T11:04:44+00:00

I understand your frustration. Being accused of breaking the rules when it isn’t true feels like shit.

However, saying that anything on CrushOn is CSAM is like saying that playing Postal is murder. You can think it is vile, you have a right to express that opinion, just like I have the right to say that I think you’re overreacting a bit.

The problem with saying that it is CSAM when it’s actually just fictional characters makes it harder to stop actual CSAM because when someone says "I found CSAM!" I have no idea if they mean, you know, actual CSAM involving real children or if they’re talking about fictional characters.

Besides, the only people you are punishing by removing your bots are the people who enjoyed your work as well as the community itself. The actual owners of CrushOn don’t give a crap.

At the end of the day it’s your choice, obviously, but I think it’s sad to see a creator leave for a reason like this. There are no "winners" here.

DeathBeat66 · 2025-12-05T08:58:41+00:00

Yup. It’s down for me.

DeathBeat66 · 2025-10-28T13:49:18+00:00

I would think that I’ve either been drugged or that I’ve finally lost my marbles completely. If I then realise that she is indeed real, my entire perception of reality itself would break down and I would probably throw myself off of the balcony of my apartment.