Editorial policy

The accountability page. Editorial standards behind the DarLink AI coverage, what this site refuses to do, and the promises a reader is entitled to hold it to.

Independence

Editorial output on darlink-ai.io is produced independently of DarLink AI and every other platform mentioned in the main page or the alternatives comparison. No platform reviews its own coverage before publication. No platform receives edits in advance. No platform holds veto rights over how they are described. The competitor platforms named in the alternatives section (Candy AI, FantasyGF, CrushOn AI, Character.AI, Replika, Janitor AI) are treated on the same terms.

Affiliate revenue, in plain language

The site earns affiliate revenue. Some outbound CTAs on the main DarLink AI page open darlink.ai or an alternative platform through an affiliate link. When a reader signs up or subscribes after clicking, the site may receive a small commission from the destination platform, at no additional cost to the reader.

Affiliate revenue is not allowed to influence any of the following:

• Which platforms appear in a comparison. Selection is based on how often each platform comes up as a substitute for DarLink AI in reader questions, not on affiliate revenue.
• What rank they occupy. Order follows fit for the reader's stated question, not the size of the payout.
• Whether a critical claim gets softened. If a platform is worse at Y, the coverage says so, even where a commission is attached.
• Whether a relevant alternative gets omitted because it competes with a high-earning partner. Every alternative that comes up in comparison threads gets named.

Sources referenced without any affiliate arrangement (Common Sense Media, the MIT Media Lab study, Stanford Medicine's Brainstorm Lab, MariaVibe, CompanionGuide, AI Girlfriend Base) receive the same editorial treatment as any affiliate-linked platform.

Sponsored content policy

None accepted. This site does not run sponsored posts, paid product placements, native advertising, guest posts from the platforms it covers, or paid inclusions in comparison tables. If that ever changes, the change gets labelled on this page before any sponsored content publishes. Same rule applies to DarLink AI: if DarLink ever offered payment for coverage, the answer would be no, and the offer would be documented here.

Corrections and the correction log

Confirmed factual corrections are handled openly and quickly. When an error is verified, three things happen: the affected page is edited, the schema dateModified value is updated, and a line goes on the log below. Prose polish and typo fixes are not logged. Substantive factual changes are.

Correction log

• No entries yet. The first substantive correction will be logged here with date, page and nature of the change.

Sourcing standards

Every material claim on the main DarLink AI page traces back to one of four categories: direct product observation, an official platform source, published third-party research, or a documented community source (Trustpilot, r/Chatbot, Discord). Where a claim rests on inference, the reasoning is shown rather than hidden behind vague attribution. Source weighting is documented in detail on the methodology page.

Use of AI in the editorial process

Language models are used at the research and summarisation stage: compressing long primary sources, extracting figures from data tables, sorting Trustpilot review sentiment. Never as the final drafter of the prose that reaches the reader. Every sentence on the main page is written or rewritten by a human editor. Reason: language models hallucinate specifics (dates, prices, quotes) at rates that fail this site's sourcing standards, so anything published needs to pass a manual fact-check first.

Handling of research citations

Where the main page cites third-party research (MIT Media Lab, Common Sense Media, Stanford Medicine's Brainstorm Lab), citations are direct. Publication name, sample size where available, and a hyperlink to the primary source. Research is never paraphrased into implying a finding it did not make. If a finding is qualified in the source, the qualification travels into the coverage.

Reader rights

Readers can expect: an accurate publication date on every page, a visible author byline linking to the editor's profile, a working corrections pathway, an affiliate disclosure on the pages where affiliate links appear, and the identity of the editor responsible. The methodology page covers the operational side of these rights. This page covers the promises side.

Data and access

Data handling for readers of this site (cookies, analytics, third-party services) sits on the privacy policy. Reader agreement covering site use is on the terms of service. Adult access rules are on the age verification page. Federal record-keeping position for a third-party editorial site is on the 2257 statement. The people and structure behind the coverage are on the about page.

Contacting the editor

Editorial matters (corrections, disagreements with a specific claim, press queries) go directly to the editor via LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/melissablake1. Response window is seven working days.

Last reviewed: October 6, 2026 · by Melissa Blake