Service Diaries
Safety & Moderation
AIM ATTITUDE INC. · Version 1.0 · Published October 11, 2026
Service Diaries is in development. This policy separates safeguards in the current app from the planned community. There is no live moderation queue, staffed in-app report delivery or automatic safety-alert service.
1. Care with clear limits
AIM helps people move forward. Qualified professionals provide professional care. Emergency services respond to emergencies. Service Diaries offers expression, reflection and human connection; it does not provide medical care, therapy, diagnosis, crisis intervention or emergency response.
Moderation concerns content deliberately submitted to the community. It does not authorize staff to monitor private diaries, assess members' mental health or notify employers. Discussing distress or seeking support is not itself a violation. Access to independent support remains separate from community agreement or publication.
2. What exists today
The native app uses limited on-device support suggestions. They can miss risk, misunderstand context or suggest support when it is not needed. They do not establish a diagnosis, reliably predict danger or generate a staff alert. No one is automatically called or messaged, and private writing is not transmitted to AIM ATTITUDE for review.
Separate on-device publication checks look for identifying details and certain harmful language. Passing them is not human approval. Public posting is unavailable. Reports and blocks are local demo controls; reports do not reach a person, and local blocking is not a service-wide protection.
3. Review before publication — planned community
The planned community would apply the same pre-publication review to difficult stories, Customer Heroes and replies. A deliberate submission would enter a restricted queue. Pending text would be available only to its author through an appropriate receipt view and authorized reviewers. Approval would apply to an exact revision. An edit would return to review before becoming visible.
Reviewers would consider direct and combined identifying details, confidential records, harassment, discrimination, threats, harmful instructions, exploitation, unsupported targeting and community scope. They could approve, request a revision or reject with a reason. Automated assistance would not replace human review or turn a private diary into review material. Third-party AI processing of submitted writing is not part of this plan.
Human review can reduce risk; it cannot guarantee anonymity, factual truth, legality or emotional safety. The necessary staffing and review controls must be established before community sharing opens.
4. Reports from members and nonmembers — planned community
The planned service would provide in-app reports and an accessible route for guests, businesses and other people without an account. A report should include a story or reply reference, concern category and brief explanation, with only the information needed to locate and understand the concern.
Do not send an entire diary, recovery code, password or unnecessary identification. If private supporting information is needed, its purpose and an appropriate restricted channel would be explained. Ordinary email is not a secure evidence vault. A case acknowledgment would mean that the report was actually received and recorded, with a reference and clear coverage expectations.
Exposed identities, credible threats, child-safety concerns and ongoing targeted harassment would receive priority. Staff could temporarily limit visibility during investigation. A report or temporary restriction would not establish misconduct. Malicious reporting and retaliation against a reporter would also be subject to review.
5. Review and enforcement — planned community
Review would apply the Community Guidelines consistently, considering context, quotations, available evidence, the content revision and risk to the people involved. Report volume alone would not decide a case, and a business would not gain authority to identify an author.
The planned baseline is removal of violating content and the responsible account after a confirmed violation. An unreviewed report would not authorize automatic punishment. Private writing would remain separate from community restrictions.
The affected member would receive the applicable rule, action, scope and appeal route, except where a lawful and necessary limitation prevents disclosure. Notices would not expose a reporter's private identity or unnecessary evidence. Restricted decision records would support review and correction. Moderation would not establish that every allegation is true or that someone is guilty of a crime.
6. Appeals and correction — planned community
An affected member or requester would be able to seek another review using the case reference and a concise explanation. A different qualified reviewer would be used where practicable, with conflicts considered and reasons recorded. A mistaken decision would be corrected and the affected person told what changed. Restoring visibility would require an authorized decision on the relevant content revision.
Coverage hours, response expectations and appeal instructions will be published before these services operate. No fixed deadline or continuous coverage is currently promised. An internal appeal window would not remove a statutory right, and an appeal would not require disclosure of private writing.
7. Threats, child safety and legal requests
Private support suggestions and moderation escalation are separate. For a credible threat in content the service actually receives, a trained reviewer would follow a professionally reviewed escalation process. Service Diaries does not promise rescue, diagnosis, location tracking or continuous monitoring. An optional writer region is not a reliable location for emergency response.
Child-safety material and legally reportable concerns require restricted access, trained staff and an appropriate preservation and reporting procedure before community launch. Reporters should not redistribute illegal content or conduct their own investigations. Legal requests are subject to review for validity, scope and applicable restrictions. Only information actually held can be produced; staff cannot retrieve an unuploaded local diary through the current app.
Reports and appeals would be restricted information, not legally privileged communications. Necessary disclosures, retention exceptions or reporting duties would be explained where permitted. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
8. Retaliation and privacy protection
Guest ratings, blacklists, identification searches, doxxing, coordinated retaliation and personal dossiers are prohibited. Live blocking would need service-wide enforcement, but could not prevent independent screenshots or guarantee that someone could not create another account. Direct messaging and incident-location discovery are excluded from the planned initial release.
The same care applies to the writer, guest, business and person reporting a concern. Positive stories do not bypass identity checks. Hosted-content rules preserve lawful external complaints, protected reporting and legally protected labor activity.
9. Staff, records and service capacity — planned community
Before public sharing opens, the service needs assigned reviewers, backup coverage and an escalation process. Staff access would use individual accounts, multifactor authentication, limited permissions and restricted decision records without private-diary content. Technical crash alerts would exclude story text, credentials, recovery codes and support classifications.
Case, appeal, audit and recovery records would have defined retention and deletion arrangements. Community publication would pause if adequate coverage were unavailable. Report delivery, absent staff, mistaken decisions, malicious reports, exposed identifiers, deletion and restoration must be tested before launch. Publishing this policy does not activate those services.
10. Independent support and contact
The app includes optional United States support destinations. In the United States, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline offers support for suicidal crisis or emotional distress: call 988, text 988, or visit https://988lifeline.org. These are independent services with their own privacy practices. For immediate danger, use the appropriate local emergency service. Service Diaries does not receive your independent support conversation through its links.
For product, privacy or content concerns, contact servicediaries@aimattitude.com. This address is not an emergency or continuously monitored moderation service. Do not send private diary text, passwords, recovery codes or unnecessary identification.