DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
Flivio Video Player All Format
TheWeirdos Lab · Photo & Video

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 138 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High3 signal sources138 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-04
 Which version this describes

This analysis describes version 13.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 13.0, updated 2026-09-27.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

One source only — shown, not confirmed 2

A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.

Reported by users: Aggressive ad load
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Advertising volume or placement that interrupts normal use: ads between every action, unskippable or forced full-screen ads.
What we saw: Aggressive ad load: raised by 19 distinct reviewers (13.8% of 138 reviews scanned)
Reported by users: Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
Reviewers repeatedly report that the app is not what its advertising showed. We never see the ad creative itself, so nothing we collect can corroborate or refute this — it is published as an attributed user report: what reviewers say, and how many of them said it.
What we saw: Misleading advertising: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (3.6% of 138 reviews scanned)

What reviewers said

Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.

Aggressive ad load

after installed l seem like I'v surrender my full right to have control. I not try to control the thing or the app but try to limit the ability of app at me me.By having permission to access privacy such internal storage ,gallery ,picture…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-23

I don't understand why I should have to watch so many ads just to view my pictures and videos. Waste of time watching ads. this is an ad delivery system identifying as a video player.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-12

Nothing but ads. And a completely pointless app since you can use your systems apps to watch videos super easy.

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-14

Reports that the ads misrepresent the app

not at all what I expected. it said it was a browser, all it wanted was access to my photos and videos, well hate to tell you, all the photos you got were clean, because Google has all the bad ones locked in aa password protected folder…

1★ · Google Play · 2026-04-03

False advertising, it's a media player, it has no video library

1★ · Google Play · 2026-03-17

DO NOT INSTALL !!! IT ONLY ALLOWS YOU TO WHAT YOUR OWN VIDEOS. The advert of FREE access to adult content is FALSE a LIE

1★ · Google Play · 2026-04-04

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.

No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.

There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.

Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.

Hands-on inspections are not yet open.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-04 Version analyzed: 13.03 independent signals138 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.