Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 573 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.
This analysis describes version 10.43.11 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 10.43.11, updated 2026-07-23.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 1
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.
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
Lied in the ad by claiming it was uncensored...it is not. Also, It is constant ads and nearly unusable because of the amount. Not worth the space on your phone. Garbage app.
so many ads before even opening it I had 3 long ads non skip able
Reminds me of the cheap ad-ware games. It seems like it wants to be a less restricted social media platform, but it just comes across like the cheap, ad-littered games all over the Play Store. Promises the world but delivers little other…
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
no censorship is B's it's just a remix oh tick. never showing anything like the ad shows it's bait and switch...too bad it could of been so much more... very disappointing.. don't waste your time on it
Ads are a lie. "fully uncensored" they lie and claim but it doesn't allow nudity making that a lie. It's a POOR tiktok wannabe that brings nothing new and loses a lot of good. Avoid this one.
its dislikable for two reasons. false advertisement is the first, as its ADVERTISED as "completely uncensored", and second is that the maturity rating being TEEN is a major age range concern. this app should not be advertised as teen…
How the automated analysis works
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.
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.