Profile active since 2016

ONLY ONE GIRL, NO GUYS, NO COUPLES, NO GROUPS :slight_smile: Let´s go!!!

I am a ***** porn actor, very popular in my country, for my movies and for my working in society trying to normalise my job. I got awards for my carrier.

Shall this be or not on Trustroots ?


Thank for bringing this up here. Many people (who never met him) complained about this profile. However, when looking into this it didn’t seem like anyone ever had a negative real-life experience with this person. What are our options here?

  1. We suspend this member. They may create a new profile. They may be less open about their intentions.
  2. We don’t suspend this member. People will complain, but no one will actually have a bad experience.

We extensively discussed this at the Collective. And on Slack (which isn’t a good medium for this discussion). There was no clear conclusion, but 2. seems a better option in my view.

We can do other things to give everyone a better experience, such as finding ways to not show this (and other) profile(s) to people who may take offense.
E.g. we can have a an option to only host a specific gender. And then allow to filter out people hosting a specific gender. What do you think?


I think this is useless. A person that would only want to host a specific gender because of sexual expectations would just not use that option to host only one gender because they can filtered with exactly that.
Rather have people specify a gender and enable guests to filter for example: Show only queer/female/male/unicorn hosts. I think as a guest you are in a generally weaker position because you ask for something and are ‘at the mercy’ of your host so as a guest you should have the option at least.

If if fits smoothly into the UI then make even both filters possible.


The only one gender option is useless, CS has it.

There are very few chances such a host actually hide his intentions, like there are very few chances someone renting his couch hide his intentions. Simply because they have expectations and want to fullfill them.

The danger comes more from opportunistic or manipulative people. Avoiding those people to create a new profile is impossible. Only making sure the contact feature is not abused can help prevent serious issues.

Deleting unappropriate profiles does clean up the map and it does present much better. After the question is where to set the boundary…


I guess it will help to focus specifically on exactly those people with violated boundaries and their encounters. If we have a record of complaints from hosts/guests we could address them specifically (with a poll?) or actually all of the user base of trustroots to let those whos boundaries have been broken speak about what they think they would like to happen so that they can safely navigate the platform and enjoy hospitality and being hospitable.

sorry for the long text but it developed as I wrote it and I want you to understand this process :slight_smile:

I think it would be good to have a public statement about that whole topic.
Trustroots is not a dating platform. Still, if two people get to see each other for the first time you can not deny that there is a possibility for them to be attracted to each other.
Denying that amorous (I wills tick to that term, it means in this case anything that one of the concerned sees it as something amorous/romantical/sexual) encounters happen through this website will not lead us anywhere (I see parallels with drug prohibition policies here).

Now even though dating is not the purpose of trustroots it is going to happen through the platform, because actually dating IS the purpose of this platform, it’s just that is explicitly not primarily sexually motivated.

No matter from which side I look at it, the only way out seems through more transparency. That anyone with amorous motivation states that as early as possible so that all other concerned ones can react to it and say “no fuck off” or “hell yeah” and I am not only speaking about heterosexual encounters here but all of them.

Sure, most people are not willing to openly show their amorous desires and deal with their consequences. Also a lot of people actually don’t care about the amorous desires of the others and just want a place to stay.

What is left?

What do you think about this idea:
We change Trustroots in a way so that before meeting a person you can not recognize the gender. No pictures, no male/female/indifferent/queer-branding of the profile. Sure is radical as an approach, but from here we could start to work out a solution.
Now I don’t think the world is not so equal that we could remove the gender from the profile and then everything is fine because - you guessed right - I had my fair share of dealing with many facets of sexism/misogyny/heteronormativity/transphonia/you_name_it myself to understand that for the people where boundaries are breached/trespassed many times in their everyday life and specifically when hosting it will not necessarily be for the better because there is even less transparency for them to make a decision on consensual basis.

I guess it will help to focus specifically on exactly those people with violated boundaries and their encounters. If we have a record of complaints from hosts/guests we could address them specifically (with a poll?) or actually all of the user base of trustroots to let those whos boundaries have been broken speak about what they think they would like to happen so that they can safely navigate the platform and enjoy hospitality and being hospitable.


On the other hand, a “dating option” or “(sexual) availability notification” for both the hosts and guests could actually also be a fun discussion - albeit it would be very much on a very narrow edge of hospitality.

e.g. “this host is available for hook-up. Let the host know if this is o.k., if you are maybe/ let’s see or no way but I still like to be hosted” This would then only be visible on something like if you are part of “dating” tribe. And things have to be extremely specific and consensual. Like, the Swedish rule. Ha.

I actually wouldn’t think this could all work (considering the diversity of the members) but the discussion about sexual experiences does not have to be an explicit no. I think there should be some room.


If you think people are able to click buttons, why wouldn’t they be able to turn down someone with a great “carrier.”?

What would this person be suspended for? (since that was mentioned)
How do you know it is a guy?
What is the “*****”, just that?

Not sure I like the wildcard person, it breaks with presenting who you are, which is in the guidelines.

Whereas drugs are illegal, sex isn’t. You can get by without mentioning either, because the legal code supersedes anything else. It can be a wilful prohibition of either, but what you can’t have is
drug approval, so they are not similar.

I think you meant to write “on the basis of consensuality”.

If someone breaches your boundaries, that is a police matter, not a majority vote concern. Likely, nobody from Trustroots was there, it is as much the tool of the abuser as it is that of the abused. Not convinced, but do argue a good system and I will try to improve on it.

@robino I would argue the publication of ones social status is prime value for scraping crawlers.
Avoiding it would mean it is only visible in (encrypted) messages sent between users.


Unappropriate behaviour, perhaps…

So you think it’s better to say " I’m here for hitting on girls " than not saying anything.
It’s more honest but we could also have " I’m here for hosting white europeans ".
Again comes the question of boundaries, can you write anything on your profile even if it is offensive or discriminatory ?

Well this is not actually true.
Many drugs are actually allowed, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana in some places, some new synthetic drugs…
While some sexual activities are actually forbidden in many countries.

Now comes the serious questions :
Is Trustroots ultra liberal and idealistic ?
Does Trusroots wants members from all over the world ?
Between an idealistic approach and a pragmatic one which one the board is willing to choose ?

Now my vision is that if TR is full of stupid and ridiculous profiles you won’t attract new members or only stupid and ridiculous members.
A young girl HH won’t use TR if it’s full of creeps while on CS, profiles are sometimes deleted when they are not appropriate, while on CS there are references, while nowadays the search function on CS is the best.

I previously said that growing faster without a proper search for cities would be a nightmare. I think the same for boundaries.

For creating trust, you need an adequate environment.
For having a long beard, I know people will pick me up in 5, 10 minutes in Malaysia or Israel… while the most beautiful girl will have to wait a little in a country like Honduras and she would have to be very selective.

A picture does not create any trust, it just give a feeling and feelings are what push people to become discriminative. It’s irrational not based on facts and reasonning.
At the opposite making decent boundaries and involving people in the process creates a trustable environment.


What specifically is unappropriate? It isn’t clear whether this person is trying to make movies, as it says “actor” rather than “director”. Maybe this person thinks convincing girls is the better use of time?

I think it is vastly better to say one is on TR to attract girls rather than nothing, if that is the only draw. Contacting a bunch of members with no such disclaimer is too much advertisement though.

You can’t incite violence on your profile, and other things described in common law.
This is no choice on part of TR, it is just the legality of things.

You fail at indemnifying the use of the word “drugs”, when you present the corner case. The point being, they are always illegal, short of some corner case countries, where both law and country are not comparable. Not actively dis/allowed is a gray-area. It invokes health and safety regulation by default.

In the only ideal that mates with ultra liberal, it is irrelevant whether people are from all over the world so long as they have the opportunity. If this is the case, then any member can freely discriminate, under freedom of association.

It is possible to have less stupid profiles, by making the process of entry harder.
Though it isn’t as if ridiculousness goes down at the upper echelons of the IQ scale either, so you end up needing vetting of every profile to get results. Begging the question of, what is the current problem, and is it getting worse? The early adopter userbase seems fine to me.

Reciprocal systems of mutual benefit is how trust thrives. The best one can hope for over the noise of adoption (which will get worse) is pareto principle tier quality division.
Awarding people for being early is a mild(ening) quality, I would say responses, interactions, and info make up the rest.

I don’t think TR can do a whole lot about the level of crime, or the evolutionary pressure in a country. If anything, more info on profiles, (that is honest,) and a system of catering it to the benefit of the community is the only way to go. Banning profiles means new and intentionally secretive ones are made. And however likely this improves or worsens TR, that person is still out there. In that regard, getting a message is likely better than having ones account banned.

TL;DR drawing the line at legal is the least amount of moderation, awarding good profiles is a much better idea than penalizing bad ones, because then imitations of good ones will pop up.
That is the most amount of moderation possible, because it is an endless game, so it is “unfeasible”.

Edit: I gave the regional risk to bulk of travel question some thought. Fortunately adoption in the third world is low, as this avoids the unfortunate. Even if every TR profile in these regions is legitimate and these are all great people, travelling there is unsafe, for reasons there are a lot of not-great people around.

The more people avoid something, the greater the allure, the greater the will of proving the whole world wrong. To someone this is an exiting risk to take, or seemingly a great conspiracy.
Neither risk-takers nor naïve people should run their experiments on the ability of everyone to do most everything.

Run this experiment, and sooner or later some open minded person thinks the world can be changed by living their bias of how everyone is great, and it is just about how nobody is as open minded as they are, so they go there on the premise that this is some kind of invulnerability.
They blog about the route of where they are going, so that everyone in the world can know where they are, or were last seen…
Fast forward, and you have a PR-campaign TR couldn’t ever get rid of, because the every-day life in these places is prime time news once it is a European that goes missing.

So while TR is great, and the people on it are too, it is a system set for failure in some places.
TR could forward clear warnings up front, specific warnings from embassy’s, etc.
Everything that would make a rational person think. No how to do it, instead all centered around why one shouldn’t.
Then the impending lawsuit has less meat, and TR can continue to exist.

TL;DR 2 Wanting to prove a non-point of safe third-world travel, should not jeopardize the health of the platform, and not pray on the weak that don’t understand this by promoting it. It is instead a point later brought against TR for liability, in court.


That is something which is a great issue with TR and westerners in general.
Which common law, there is no common law in the EU, neither in the US though the US still have a decent federal system. What you want to call common law is actually your usual customs.
So the problem is still standing and I will ask you directly, since you want to argue, Do you think TR should allow discriminatory or offensive speech for the sake of freedom of speech and honesty ?

May I reply you fail at using " common language ".
Alcohol is a drug, at least in medecine.
Alcohol is officially a drug in any country where it is forbidden.
Alcohol is not legaly a drug in any country which allows it.

Taking the third case with the first one. Alcohol is a drug and it is allowed in many countries.
Point is legal definition are extremly unconsistant while medical/scientific ones aren’t. Therefore it make sense on an international forum to use international language and to refer to medical definition instead of playing with legal definitions.

And so ?
Discriminations have always existed and will always exists.
While it is not a problem to discriminate, it is one to be offensive.
For the same reason you say no if you don’t want to have sex with someone but you don’t swear back at him/her.

Is it getting worse ? The answer is obvious in the real world. A bigger city always have more issues than a small one. This is why there is a whole set of people working to keep the place fine. Those people follow boundaries.


About the Edit…

CS tend to prove the opposite.
Most crimes happened in western europe where the website is used a lot.
In poor places there seems to be very little issues but the website is not used a lot.
So this is not enough to prove anything.

However when looking at some places like Afghanistan it seems CS is making the travel safer.

There are a lot of matters you forgot to take into consideration. While a hospex is mostly used to save money or have social interactions in busy touristic places, it is not the same everywhere.

Typically in a place like Afghanistan your main preoccupation is normally not your money but your life. Meaning people are using a website like CS for their safety more than for saving money. Of course there is still a possibility to hire a bunch of bodyguards and heavy vehicles but here I am comparing an usual backpacker who barely or not at all use hospex with someone who do use those websites.

The thing is that in those countries the hospex communities are smaller and more concerned. Those countries are not touristic. Meaning that the rotten apple is quickly found and quicked out, and making a new profile wouldn’t help since there are ways to check.
Also since it isn’t touristic the best hosts are actually available, avoiding the main issue some people have in very touristic southern europe.

Those hosts in dangerous countries are actually making your trip safer by giving advices and knowledge you can’t get by internet or any other channel. Last but not least asking a random person is more risky than asking a decent host who have references.

I haven’t been to Afghanistan but several travelers have been there and they used a lot CS. To get informations, to get clothes, to have recent info on the situation, to book a bus ticket, to find a vehicle, to get hosted… There is info on internet and few books written by very experienced traveler.

Almost forgot the most important…
Why are we talking about " third world countries " as you call them.
My original example was about Barcelona, it was about a problem faced in big touristics and rich cities.


Hi everyone! :wave: This thread is getting a bit heated, so let me paraphrase our community guidelines and say that one shouldn’t be argumentative for its own sake, even if it feels like other people are doing the same thing.

Also, when we are talking about possible changes to the website, I suggest we talk about specific situations. Hypothetical discussions about app features lead nowhere, in my experience. Facts can be refuted; opinions cannot.

In the rest of this comment, I’ll restate the original question and give my own answer. But first, some introductory facts:

  • There is a user on TR who is pretty clearly advertising his sexual availability.
  • Trustroots has community guidelines and rules about being a host.
  • Those rules currently do not prohibit this user from doing what they are doing.

Question: Should Trustroots prohibit this user’s behavior?

(@cedric, is that an accurate way to state your original question?)

My answer would be, “Not right now, but maybe in the future.”

There are four reasons for this answer.

  • Not right now, …
    (1) Nobody has interacted with this person and then reported them for inappropriate behavior.
    (2) Everyone has the right to choose their hosts and their guests.
    (3) This person isn’t shifting the culture of the site. They are a total outlier.
  • … but maybe in the future.
    (4) If Trustroots did start getting lots of profiles that were clearly invitations to sex, I would explicitly prohibit them—but only if they were causing a huge maintenance burden or harming the other communities on the site. Be vigilant, and moderate if necessary.

In other words, I think this person is ok, but there is a risk. I think sex is morally neutral, and hypothetically (:wink: ) it would even be cool to have a Sex-Positivity tribe. But there are so many taboos, so many cultural misunderstandings, and too many bad connotations with the internet and porn. Trustroots already has its hands full trying creating a “world that encourages trust, adventure and intercultural connections.” It might be too much to try to take on sex culture, too.


So I am asking again, is it allowed to have discriminatory sentences on a TR profile like " I don’t want africans neither muslims ".
It could also be " no meat eater in my home "

I just realized, is there any girl who ever posted something on meta ?
Would be interesting to have females commenting on the first issue.


I have been inviting several female people top this platform, online and offline. They were not interested. I do not take any generalizing conclusion from that. I would very much like to have their opinion on the topic at hand.

I am very sad to have to tell you that this is clearly not the case. In no country there is any law that talks about boundaries. The only thing that laws protect is property. Here in Austria not even the human rights are an actual law that you have to follow but just a recommendation.

We had another member reported:

“I’m a nudist at home and I prefer to have someone who is open minded with that and like to be naked also.
At most one guest.”
clearly doesn’t sound anyhow safe for anyone.

Where I can understand and would tolerate “I’m a nudist at home and I prefer to have someone who is open minded with that” I would not tolerate a profile that says “I prefer to have someone who like to be naked also.”

Paradoxon of Tolerance:
I think everybody dealing with this topic should read this article.
Where ones boundaries can be the offense of the other it is hard to dogmatically defend the one and suppress the other.
In cases like the nudist or the sex-actor my idea is as follows:
We need a set of trusted mediators that can moderate a case like that. The person that reports will find a person that deals with their report, a person that also has access to a more trusted member-base (even if you want to keep the TR totally anarchistic, you cant) to get a wider feedback and discussion on the specific report. In this discussion everyone should be clearly aware of the paradox mentioned above and try to stick to rational arguments of what should be possible and what not and why.
Then the reported member should be approached with the report and should have a saying on why they are describing their profile the way they do. Also, although I am not sure how, it would be great to brand a profile as moderated so that the wider user-base can get the feeling like “ok, this profile has been through a moderation, there is a reason why it is was allowed to stay but I can report it again because I think this is offensive (it might have changed)”.

Sure, that is not a perfect approach, but we will not get around this moderation labor if we want to have a platform with trusted members. Trust can not come for free and if we can not find enough member to moderate this reports then - IMHO - we do not have the critical amount of people to actually run a trustworthy, cool hosting website.

If everyone wants a free service then everyone has to participate.

This, I think is crucial. We need this transparency and we need a space where we can, through transparency, have everybody enjoy their experience here.
But we need to spread the responsibility and the work that is needed to navigate a transparent place to everybody, not only to the female users.
It won’t help if we make it easy for men to be transparent about wanting to date females when at the same time it becomes harder for females to find acceptable hosts!

Not advertising a dating platform here but a structure: There are dating websites where you can - as a LGBTQ-Member - decide to only be seen by LGBTQ-Members.
So we could have a tribe of “solo-travelling gilrls” that can say: I only want to be seen by solo-travelling girls.
This leads to a structure that I already described in the tribes discussion thread but still, it might cerate (not a save, but) a safer space where less boundaries are broken.


Yes and since a reference system will be released ( though I don’t know how it will look like ), I am guessing the moderators won’t have time to be bored.
This is where clear boundaries make the job much easier. No endless discussions to know who is right who is wrong… The only thing the moderator has to do is to check if it is " legal " or not with TR boundaries.

What would happen if someone write a negative reference to someone he/she never met ?
Is it deleted ? Is it kept ?
What would happen if someone having a bad experience with another member ask his friends to write a bunch of retaliatory references ?
What happen if a moderator is corrupt by a friend and how to avoid it ?

I think that all those questions need answers who are clearly written and all new members should read them before starting. It’s also creating trust to know where you are heading.


I think to both of those questions there is only one answer:
Any system can be abused. I think we should focus more on the positive constructiveness. Not on how it can be abused but rather how to attract people that would rather not abuse any of the features :wink:

We make it transparent. The reference should include a section of how you come to your conclusion, no matter if negative or positive.
Also we have the contacts feature and even if the negative reference is anonymous we could make sth. like X% of the reporters contacts left a negative/positive reference. (I guess?)
To make networks of self-supporting positives/negatives transparent.

Edit: but I think that is more for the reference discussion, not for the safety/boundaries topic.


CS has been pretty safe. Most issues are pitifull ones. Unfortunately the few times CS was making headlines of the newspapers was for very bad cases.
So making it hard to abuse the system is I think quite important.

Personally I like better a vouching system than a reference system. What killed the CS vouching system was the easyness to abuse it.

References without boundaries are useless. If one can write anything he wishes, the reference system will be highly abused.
Once again I will take the example of CS, how many people abused the reference system to get more than 10 requests a week. Unfortunately those people from what I am understanding are moving to TR.

I think it is better to have a set of few strong rules and to make sure they are not abused rather than hoping for the best and patching here and there everytime there is an issue.


You misread me, what I challenge is not problems that scale, but rather where the type of crime is extreme, to where it jeopardizes the platform, especially if handled badly, and areas where crime is higher than average, by use.

The predictive validity of poverty is not something you can derive violent crime from, there are much more valid facets of society. Why is not so much interesting as where. If we can agree that some areas are dangerous, we can focus on avoiding those problems for users, and avoid users pushing those problems back on TR.

You don’t think the concept of common law exists in terms of inciting violence, but it is obvious to me what you mean when you say discriminatory and offensive?
What do you want to disallow, and why?
Edit: Common law exists in a specific sense originating in anglo-jurisdictions, so I should have said: “ius commune”.

What you said ranges from the implicit (by language), to the subjective whim of the individual.

You are making my point, it is not possible to talk about drugs in a way that doesn’t encompass legality, certainly not in common parlance, and as you have demonstrated, neither in strict terms. It should thus, be avoided. There is zero reason to endorse the use of alcohol either, to the contrary as some might not be aware of the above difference.

In your example you are adding potential offence. What you allude to earlier is a discriminatory statement, however elegantly put, which would amount to undue offence.

Is there a current problem with TR members, and is it worsening? I don’t know if you liken TS to a city, but if you compare cities for size, and to each-other, you don’t always get that result.
Which is what one would try to replicate. The level of terrorism in Tokyo is something I would take over any city smaller than it.

You misread me, what I challenge is not problems that scale, but rather where the type of crime is extreme, to where it jeopardizes the platform, especially if handled badly, and areas where crime is higher than average, by use.

The predictive validity of poverty is not something you can derive violent crime from, there are much more valid facets of society. Why is not so much interesting as where. If we can agree that some areas are dangerous, we can focus on avoiding those problems for users, and avoid users pushing those problems back on TR.

First of all you must address the issue, Afghanistan is an unsafe place to travel.

Do not travel to Afghanistan due to crime, terrorism , civil unrest , and armed conflict .

Level 4: Do Not Travel

(This Travel Advisory Level only goes to 4)

In similar areas, in the cities they operate in, embassy workers (who are all male, and combat trained), are not permitted to bring their families. They live in their guarded embassy and travel in armoured vehicles.

If you increase travel to these regions, that means increased risk, which is not safer. This factors into it going wrong sooner or later.

So when a country (the UK), tells you it is not to be done, and they have an intelligence agency, and plenty of examples to give of why you shouldn’t, you are comparing your “safer”, to something that is the the opposite of “essential”. Hiring help is not safe either, which really should alarm you to the amount of apples that went into the mix of oranges in your comparison.
It is not a leisure destination.

Any amount of moderation or AI isn’t going to do it atm. I don’t need to get into it. That has been tried.
At the opposite end, it is very easy to find the very few vetted profiles, for anyone. Think.
Having to send multiple requests is not the issue. In your words, your life is.

No, they don’t, because I have no business being there. And as such, I follow the advice given to me in the provided links. You seem to forego the word liability, in quest of facilitation.

You mentioned Honduras, it isn’t a very safe place.

Honduras - Level 3: Reconsider Travel

I understand very well how this is not a place where you can take everything at face value.


I take this to be, albeit arriving from elsewhere, just a neutral stance?

I agree. It could be specifically mentioned that TR is not a way to advertise your brothel.

Plenty of those around, which arguably also is an implication on genetics. Arguably following Islam is also a choice, although the death-penalty for apostasy is practised, and commonly believed in. “Africans” encompasses a lot, but lets say for sake of argument it said “No R-Z284 Y-DNA haplogroup people thanks”. Possibly because that would remind them of someone, and they don’t want the exposure therapy. Or every interaction that they ever had with this very limited populace has been negative.

That would be one less message to send, and maybe an interesting conversation to start, or not.

If someone doesn’t like someone with the letter G in their name, i’ll be all the wiser and move on. Or maybe that intrigues me. It stands to reason I would want to pass judgement, and arrive at my own decision. All it does is give me as a peruser of profiles fair warning, and more power.

I’ve talked to someone who stayed at such a place, and it was fine. I dare say your Presbyterian ways are safely on the decline. Being naked has not hurt anyone. I don’t think anyone dangerous would pose as a nudist, more-so than say a photographer, or a bowler, or someone who drinks water from time to time.

And your search continues? It is just as weird for you to be wearing clothes in the home of someone who is a nudist than what you are OK with. If you don’t like nudism, I don’t know, don’t visit a nudist?

I will gladly, and calmly, shoot down any attempt at challenging your anarchist ideals. If they are found to be valid, under current jurisdiction, which I am also happy to research, or there is a twist, I will give whoever is doing it an opportunity to defend themselves. This will, as you find, be difficult, but I operate in good faith.

How did you arrive at this? If anything I would think they would look up each-others profiles and thus solve the “problem” of single individuals.
In the proposed scenario, you know upfront that someone is seeking companionship, and you are able to negotiate it upfront, or you learn about it later. I’d go with earlier every time if that is what I wanted to avoid, or be clear about.

Might it not also create a really unsafe structure where you are allowing for bad-actors to sign up for it, without the scrutiny of most of the members? The paradox very much works with antisocial behaviour to egalitarian society.


Well if you want not to be misread perhaps stop making abstractions and speak about specific issues, take clear real examples…

So go to different states just of the US and see how they deal with discriminations, no they do not have the same definition of what discrimination and offensive is. Federal law is often backwards, some states are ahead. I let you make your research.

This is ridiculous !
You are talking about law not me, I was just replying.
So you bring the matter of law then claim it is impossible to avoid it.
Sure if someone wants to burns the forrest, we can’t avoid it…

This is also ridiculous you make a comparaison but with what ?
There are millions of cities worldwide.
Between the level of terrorism and crime in Tokyo and most Japanese villages, almost all Japanese villages are doing better…
I wasn’t making a mathematical absolutist law but a realistic generalization…
Realistic is imperfect but at least it is useful.
You don’t solve specific issues with abstractions and dreams…

What do you think the UK officials think about HH in general or hospex website.
You know how many governments have said to do not HH, it is unsafe especially in those anglo-saxons countries.
For once that you back up your claims, you are backing them up with an authority which is excessive.

So if was following those type of advices I wouldn’t go to Morocco neither Mexico given the actual terroritis or criminal situations. I wouldn’t HH neither in the US neither in the countries previously cited.
Then I come to this conclusion, what is TR for ?
Safer to stay in hotel, safer to the train or plane, safer to stay away from some neighboorhoods…

Which liability, you’re not in the US and TR is just an interface ?
CS based in the US has never as far as I know being liable for nothing.
You’re just speculating !

Perhaps you have no business there but this is you.
So once again stop talking as a ridiculous westerner and dividing the world in good developped countries and third world and axis of evil.
Once again I let you do your research.

Those great intelligency services you were referring too are the ones who messed up Irak, Syria, Afghanistan because they choose one strategy, but they had no clue about what they were doing.
Once again I let you do your research and I suggest you do the same for yougoslavia.
It’s quite interesting to compare.

When was the last time you were there ?
Once again you choose some kind of very oriented documentation.

I wonder is France a dangerous destination for you ?
Basing my judgement on some famous politicians or even fox news I can prove you that nowadays France is almost like Afghanistan, we are dying, we are starving, there are huge riots… Soon we will be under Charia law.

I am wondering what is your obsession with " third world " countries ?
Not so long ago Norway was one !

What I am understanding from your posts is that a guy hitting on girls but as a gentleman is more valuable to TR than a host in some dangerous country who is actually a danger to the traveler and the platform just because he wants to be hospitable.

So you are actually proving that we need moderation otherwise we will end up with people stating on their profile I host only white europeans and obviously the “turkish” from germany, the " maroccan " from france, the " indonesian " from netherlands… won’t stay around.
As one can see on CS those guys actually host and HH.
Fortunately when someone post hatespeech on the CS hitchhikers forum, he is getting reported by a white Swedish member and his profile deleted by the CS management. Then people quickly forget about him.