Trust begins
with transparency.
Our editorial policy, research methodology and approach to publishing. How we gather evidence, interpret findings, protect privacy, acknowledge limitations and correct mistakes.
Clarity is part
of credibility.
Sasha7 is a privacy-focused dating platform for adults. We also publish original member surveys, platform activity analyses, research-informed explainers and commentary on relationships, technology and digital privacy.
Those are different kinds of evidence, and we believe readers deserve to know which is which. This policy describes the standards our editorial publications aim to follow and the limits of what our research can establish.
Source transparency
Identify the origins of claims, data and quoted research.
Honest methodology
Explain sample populations, comparison windows and limitations.
Respect for privacy
Publish aggregate findings without exposing member identities.
Editorial accountability
Distinguish analysis from evidence and provide a path to corrections.
What we publish. What we don't claim.
Sasha7 publishes content intended to inform public discussion about discreet dating, privacy, relationships and the ways technology shapes intimate lives. Our editorial output includes first-party member surveys, analyses of activity on our platform, discussion of publicly accessible online communities, practical guides, competitor comparisons, and explainers referencing outside research.
These formats should not be treated as interchangeable. A poll of Sasha7 members reflects the people who participated; a platform report describes activity observed on Sasha7; a science explainer interprets third-party work; and an opinion or advice article may include editorial judgment.
Sasha7's original reports are company-produced research. They are not automatically representative of the general population and should not be described as independently peer-reviewed academic research unless a specific publication actually meets that standard.
This policy applies to editorial and research publications on Sasha7 properties. Product terms, account information and data rights are governed by the applicable Privacy Policy and related service policies.
Every number needs a frame.
Where Sasha7 publishes an original quantitative finding, our standard is to explain the source of the data, the group or activity it describes, and the relevant limitations. The detail available may differ by study; information not disclosed in a particular report should not be inferred from this policy.
Member surveys
Our member surveys describe responses from participating adults on Sasha7. Their results are typically self-reported, and samples may be voluntary or otherwise non-random. When available, source reports should identify:
- Population and eligibility: who was invited or responded, and any stated eligibility criteria.
- Sample and field period: the number of respondents, geography and dates of data collection.
- Question and denominator: the wording or subject of the question and whether percentages refer to all respondents or a subset.
- Limitations: possible selection, nonresponse, recall and social-desirability biases, as well as uncertainty around self-reported answers.
Membership on a discreet-dating platform is itself a selection factor. Such samples cannot be assumed to represent all adults, all married people or everyone who has experienced infidelity. We avoid presenting non-probability samples as nationally representative and do not attach a conventional probability-sample margin of error unless the sampling design justifies it.
Platform activity analyses
Registration, messaging and profile-update statistics describe events recorded on Sasha7 during stated periods. Relative changes require a comparison baseline. Where possible, reports should identify the measured event, geography, date range and reference window.
A rise in activity does not establish causation. Nor does it reveal how frequently residents of a city or country engage in infidelity. Rankings based on our user base describe patterns within Sasha7, which may reflect platform adoption and audience composition rather than general-population behavior.
Public community and secondary-source analysis
When discussing public online forums or existing studies, we aim to distinguish observable posts and published findings from our interpretation. Community posts are not representative samples of the people who share the behavior being discussed. We seek to attribute third-party findings to their original sources where practical.
Who or what the data represents.
What was asked or counted, and when.
What the result does not prove.
Examples from our research
AI & discreet relationships
A survey of 1,087 adult Sasha7 members in the US, Australia and Canada. Results describe participating members' reported behaviors, not all adults.
Read the original AI report ↗Halloween & dating activity
Combines 2025 platform activity comparisons with a separate 2026 member survey (n=2,024). Observed activity and survey opinions are distinct datasets.
Read the Halloween report ↗For more studies and interpretation notes, visit the Sasha7 Research library.
People before publicity.
Because Sasha7 operates in a privacy-sensitive category, research and editorial decisions should protect people who use the platform. Public-facing research should rely on aggregate or appropriately de-identified information rather than exposing identifiable member profiles, private messages, contact details or intimate personal disclosures.
We do not treat access to member information as permission to publish a person's identity or private communications. When discussing public forum posts or sensitive experiences, publication should account for the possibility that quoted material could be traced back to an individual.
- Share research summaries and group-level trends rather than individual account data.
- Consider small subgroups and combinations of attributes that could increase re-identification risk.
- Separate illustrative examples and fictionalized scenarios from verified observations.
- Handle requests for underlying research material on a case-by-case basis, subject to privacy, confidentiality and legal considerations.
For information about personal-data processing, retention and user rights, consult our Privacy Policy. This editorial policy does not replace it or promise public release of raw survey responses.
Accuracy is a process.
Our publication standard is to check material factual claims against available sources before release and to distinguish verifiable findings from interpretation. The appropriate level of review depends on the article: a first-party platform analysis, a product guide and a psychology explainer require different kinds of evidence.
Editorial review principles
- Source: identify first-party datasets or credible outside references and distinguish primary evidence from commentary about it.
- Check: review figures, definitions, dates, sample sizes, comparison periods and material quotations against their supporting sources.
- Contextualize: avoid causal claims from correlation alone, unsupported generalizations, misleading headings or selective presentations of data.
- Label: make clear when content is a company survey, platform analysis, practical advice, opinion or research-informed explainer.
- Revisit: clarify or correct information when reliable new evidence or a substantiated error is brought to our attention.
Where an article addresses psychology, behavioral science or health-adjacent issues, its scientific claims should be grounded in identifiable external literature. Credentialed expert review is not implied for every article. A qualified reviewer should only be credited where that person actually reviewed the material. Advice and analysis on Sasha7 are not substitutes for individualized clinical, legal or mental-health guidance.
Author credits, quoted specialists and research contributors should reflect their actual roles. Being published by Sasha7 or appearing in our research library is not, by itself, evidence of independent scientific validation.
The people behind our perspective.
Credibility also means making it easier to identify the people whose work informs our coverage. Where a named author or specialist contributes to Sasha7 publications, readers should be able to explore their work and understand their connection to the company.
Sasha Correia
Sasha7 author Relationships & digital behavior
Sasha Correia writes for Sasha7 about relationship psychology, modern intimacy and digital behavior. Her published author biography lists a PhD in Clinical Psychology and a master's degree in Social Psychology. Her Connectively expert profile describes her as Vice President at Sasha7 and a lead relationship researcher.
Her published topics include infidelity, online anonymity and the intersection of relationships and technology. Sasha7's commercial interest in these subjects remains relevant, and the research or advice in each article should be assessed on its own sources, disclosures and limitations.
For questions about authorship, research methodology or corrections, contact [email protected].
Technology can assist. Accountability stays human.
Generative AI and automated tools may be used in editorial workflows, including brainstorming, drafting support, editing, translation, formatting or analyzing text. Such assistance does not make an output independently verified or exempt it from ordinary editorial standards.
Our policy is to assess factual assertions, statistics and attributed quotations against their underlying sources rather than treating AI-generated text as evidence. We should not invent interviewees, credentials, datasets, references or expert endorsements; portray synthetic examples as verified experiences; or describe AI-generated analysis as human fieldwork.
When AI plays a material role in research methods or creates synthetic material that readers could reasonably mistake for authentic evidence, that role should be explained in the relevant publication. The same principle applies to translations and adaptations where meaning, figures or claims could change.
Tools may help produce a publication, but Sasha7 remains responsible for what it publishes. An AI system is not an author, scientific validator or independent fact-checker simply because it generated text.
We are a publisher — and a business.
Sasha7 operates a commercial adult dating platform. Our editorial content is published by the same company and may discuss the dating industry, alternative services, user preferences and the products of competing businesses. Readers should consider that relationship when interpreting our claims.
Where material is promotional, sponsored, affiliated or otherwise financially influenced, it should be identifiable as such. Competitor comparisons should separate verifiable features, pricing and policies from Sasha7's own perspective and should avoid presenting marketing judgments as independent testing.
Company-produced surveys and reports are first-party research, not independent third-party audits. Publishing useful data does not eliminate a publisher's commercial interest. Our aim is to make those interests visible while supporting meaningful scrutiny of the research itself.
Learn more about the organization on our About page, or find company resources and coverage in the Press room.
If we get something wrong, tell us.
Accuracy is an ongoing responsibility. Readers, researchers and journalists can report suspected factual errors, misleading data presentations, attribution issues or substantive omissions by emailing [email protected] with the article URL, the statement in question and any supporting evidence.
Our policy is to assess substantiated concerns and make appropriate corrections or clarifications. Material changes should be disclosed near the affected content or in an editor's note when that context helps readers understand what changed. Routine copy edits, formatting fixes and minor updates may not require individual notices.
Send the relevant link, claim and evidence.
Evaluate the claim and its supporting material.
Update content and note material changes where appropriate.
Corrections, clarifications and updates are not identical: a correction fixes an error; a clarification resolves ambiguity; an update adds later information. The page's publication date should not be silently replaced merely because an article receives a small edit.
Email the editorial contact with the article and supporting details ↗
Use the finding. Keep the context.
Journalists and researchers may cite publicly reported Sasha7 statistics with appropriate attribution to Sasha7 and the relevant original report, subject to applicable rights. Please preserve the described sample, date range, geography, denominator and comparison baseline. Do not reframe member survey results as general-population estimates or infer causal relationships the study did not test.
| Identify the source | Link to the original article or study rather than quoting an isolated statistic without context. |
|---|---|
| Name the population | Say “surveyed Sasha7 members” or “activity on Sasha7” when those are the populations measured. |
| Preserve the window | Include the period and comparison group for activity-change figures. |
| Ask for deeper data | Contact the research/press team about methodology, additional tabulations or permission to reproduce visuals. Raw identifiable data is not publicly offered. |
A useful starting point is the research library, which links to original reports and places key findings alongside their context.
A few important distinctions.
Is Sasha7 research independently peer-reviewed?
Not by default. Sasha7 publishes company-produced member surveys, platform analyses and other editorial material. A specific work should only be described as independently peer-reviewed if it has actually undergone that process.
Can Sasha7 survey findings describe all married adults?
No. Respondents are members or other participants defined by a particular study, typically using non-probability sampling. Findings should not be generalized to all married adults or all people having affairs.
Does Sasha7's editorial team review every article with a psychologist?
No such blanket claim is made. Sasha Correia is a named Sasha7 contributor, but being credited as an author or included on this page does not establish that she has reviewed every article. Third-party scientific evidence should be appropriately attributed, and expert review should only be credited when it actually occurred.
Does Sasha7 use AI to publish content?
AI tools may assist with editorial tasks. This policy requires source checking and appropriate transparency for material uses; it does not claim that all Sasha7 content is written exclusively by humans or that AI-generated text is a verified source.
How can I question a statistic or request a correction?
Email [email protected] with the publication link and the specific question or evidence. See the corrections section for details.
Questions welcome.
Corrections too.
Have a question about our methodology, a source, editorial standards or a possible error? Contact Sasha7's press and editorial address with the details.
For corrections, include the article URL, precise statement and supporting source. For press resources, visit our newsroom.