Why can free members send Friend requests?

While I get that it's better to be safe than sorry, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would even notice if someone were engaging in prostitution on SLS. If they were, it would more likely be reported by another member rather than being discovered by SLS staff directly, much less someone in law enforcement. If reported and SLS looked the other way, that would be a different matter.

I think it's also way over-estimated what SLS's accountability would be for someone using a legal impliment (i.e. SLS messaging) to commit a crime. It would almost be like holding Walmart accountable because someone bought a knife from them and used it to commit a crime. If Walmart sold them the knife suspecting the buyer planned to use it for a crime, that would be another matter.

While the letter of the law may hold SLS accountable, the spirit of the law should not. Of course some laws exist for the main purpose of revenue generation, so there is that. Just like the medical profession will base it's recommendations on the worst possible outcome regardless of how likely that outcome is, so will legal counsel. Everyone knows this is all about covering one's ass, which is one reason we can't have nice things ;-)

The question though would be one of accountability.
If some investigator were to look into someone doing something illegal, one road of investigation would be to follow the money. If SLS had some of the tainted cash that would imply collusion.

If my neighbor is running a bawdy house and on occasion a client parks in my driveway when I am not there, it is an entirely a different thing than If I rent him parking privileges .

I'm thinking that it's easier to track down someone doing illegal activity if you have a credit card from them. Of course someone planning to do illegal things probably has a way around that, but a free member is essentially unknown and mostly untraceable.

If I were a pimp, I would consider a monthly membership fair advertising overhead.

Some one needs to explain to me why inserting yourself into the revenue stream , would make you less liable.
Being blindsided by someone who just walked in the door is far more defensible than 'being in a arguably financial partnership.

<p>We removed most free member access due to the FOSTA laws. We believe it is far too great of a risk to allow free members to communicate. We don't want to get shut down or go to prison because one free member used the site for prostitution. I don't see any of that access coming back.</p>

Crashtest74 - That is what SLS used to do 10 years ago when we first started, however back then, they had Email and Messaging. Since then, Messaging became what SLS considers EMail.

Being that this is the case, AFAIK SLS never coded for a limit on # of messages that a free member can send. They could do this, but then they can do a lot of things that they apparently don't have the time/motivation to do ;-)

I do agree that a limited # of Messages for free members would let them better determine if it's worth it for them to become a paid member.

Hell no if they are that cheap.. screw them.. they are cheap.. we spend on one meet as much as we paid for membership!

I could see letting free members at least do a little bit of limited messaging. Maybe the site can impose daily and weekly limits to the number of messages sent from a free account.

On another occasion I had a message flagged because I said we used the same universal handle across platforms.

I mentioned no specific site.

Are we to pretend no other sites exist?

Wayne on 4 28 2024 I had a wall message rejected to a free member for violation of the TOS.
Mentioning outside means of contact.

ALL I said was Join SLS so we can make contact.
WTF?

"Now they go live immediately and we review them as we can."

I've seen Free Members post outside contact information (e.g. phone numbers) in the areas they can post. Some of those Free members may not be individuals or couples but some type of business or scam. Sometimes it's obvious when viewing the profile. If I were involved in management, I'd review the review process for areas they can post.

It may also very well be that FOSTA is aimed at hardcore human trafficking, a laudable purpose., while simultaneously being both overwritten in governmental bureaucratize, and also largely just posturing.

This is the same as hairy palms as a threat opposed masturbation, or "Reefer Madness" worked.

<p>"<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:open sans,sans-serif; font-size:14px">I think perhaps looking at how FOSTA is actually being applied might be in order. It does not seem to be doing any damage to these others."</span></p>

<p>Yes, it is my understanding that there have not been any prosecutions using the law yet, but the potential is there. And we have relaxed some of the initial policies. For example, at first no Hot Date went live until we reviewed it. Now they go live immediately and we review them as we can.</p>

<p>Also, some of those other entities may either be offshore or they moved their billing process offshore to "get around" the law.</p>

At the same point there are pages and pages of life style posts on F*******k and M W, among others that are cost free and well more explicit than anything here. There are also individual clubs that , once you have any access to LS networking, just lead one to the other.

I think perhaps looking at how FOSTA is actually being applied might be in order. It does not seem to be doing any damage to these others.

There are tons of podcasts that let out the odd points of contact to the network.

Any search of the web for swinger resort leads to any number of LS friendly vacation spots so even the most clueless of newbies has a point of entry on vacation.

SLS was at one time the point of entry for many. We discovered it while at a LS friendly camp in Northern WI. It was on a big garish banner that SLS obviously supplied.

What got us hooked here was the ability to connect on a very limited basis with others, ( Was it 2-3 posts a day/week?) and hardly any access to posting photos. It was just enough to make us wonder "What if we could do more?"

Just our take on "many free" members over the years.. "most" do not put any time or effort into anything. Yes we are talking about the ones mainly on SLS for a long time. We know several personally at our gym..and YES they are cheap, mainly only voyeurs and never want to play when asked.. if they cant spend some money for a membership , we usually spend same on one or two nights out,

"Most" we have met are same in person and in bed... LAZY!

Thanks for the reminder Wayne.

<p>If you have a free account you have probably seen this:</p>

<p>"Due to new laws enacted by The US Government, we are making some changes to our business model and policies which limits access to our free members.</p>

<p>Please understand that our priority is to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for like minded people. These changes are required to meet that goal."</p>

<p>The owner took the action that he felt was the safest for the site and its members.</p>

lcmim - I agree. Either let new members have a taste or don't bother letting them in. Seeing that there are people on a site does you no good if nobody will respond to you. You don't find out how abysmal the response rate is until after you've ponied up some $$$. Granted it's not a lot, but until you know for sure it can just feel like a scam, so I can see people being reluctant to pay any amount based on their "free" experience.

FWIW - I did wind up blocking free members. It's not because I think they aren't necessarily serious about the LS as it is that there is no way we can communicate with them or them with us. The other thought was, long ago, we were talking about free member limits to SLS "email". SLS had a system in place to limit those but something would have to be developed for limiting Messages for free members. That's assuming SLS did decide to let them "taste the cheese", rather than just smelling it ;-)

<p><a href="https://www.swinglifestyle.com/profile/lookup.cfm?usercode=38773507">lcmim</a>,</p>

<p>Someone can create a free profile and look around the site and see what features it offers. They can view profiles and see events. They can see how many hot dates are in their area. They can read the stories and see the wall and see travel information, such as the lifestyle cruises.</p>

I am interested.
Given the limited accessibility, what is the reason that anyone would invest in a paid membership.
Car dealers let you test drive, supermarkets have cheese nibbles at the deli. Wine stores offer tastings.
All of these give some insight into the product on sale. What really does SLS have in this line?

Thanks Wayne. I thought you could do that but missed this setting here.

Goodenuf - This whole things started when a free member friended me. I happened to have a separate free account, so used it to see what the free member functionality du jour was, but guessing you already knew that ;-)

Lemme get this straight Mayhem, you want to hide from your own free profile?

Are you tired of seeing yourself in your WVM? Coming up as a random match?

<p><a href="https://www.swinglifestyle.com/profile/lookup.cfm?usercode=50284075">mayhem8</a>,</p>

<p>"<span style="background-color:rgb(230, 230, 249); color:rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:tahoma,verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:14px">Would be nice if we could actually block free members."</span></p>

<p>You can go to "Tools" and "Privacy Features" and hide your profile from free members. </p>

Would be nice if we could actually block free members. Then again, there are a lot of things that would fall under that "would be nice" category ;-)

FWIW - If a free member joined, this would automatically remove that block. I noticed you can exclude free members from a search by clicking the "Are paid" button.

Wayne - "I can see an advantage that if a free member sends you a friend request and you actually accept it, they then may be more encouraged to become a paid member, since someone seems interested in them."

Perhaps it's an advantage to SLS, but knowing what I know, I will never accept a Friend request from a Free member now. Since it was a couple, I did write to them and when I got no reply, I noticed they were free members and my test yielded there is no way for them to contact me or vice versa.

They can only send a Friend request once, so it's not a nuicance but the premise of it is misleading at best because, unless you went through the gyrations I went through (or read this post), you'd have no idea that there isn't any way for this new "friend" to contact you or you them.