Legal
Acceptable Use Policy
What's never allowed on DXN1 Studios platforms and with DXN1 Studios tools. Violations get you warned, suspended, removed — or reported.
Never — platform
- Grooming, sextortion, or sexual content involving minors.
- Harassment, threats, doxxing, stalking — including off-platform targeting.
- Hate speech, slurs, or calls for violence.
- Impersonation of DXN1, staff, moderators, or other users.
- Scams, phishing, or fraud — including fake payment collection.
- Spam, botting, self-referral farming, or reward gaming.
- Attempting to break, scrape, or attack the platform or other accounts.
- Sharing other people's private data without consent.
- Bypassing suspensions or bans.
Never — tools (research software)
- Using DarkWebScraper Pro or related tools for illegal access.
- Credential theft, exploit-for-hire, or targeting systems you're not authorized to test.
- Violating target-site Terms of Service or local law.
Enforcement
Consequences scale from warnings to permanent removal. Serious violations (especially child safety) skip straight to reporting law enforcement.
What "good use" looks like
- Testing your own systems and systems you're authorized to test.
- Research with a clear lawful purpose and proper documentation.
- Reporting what you find through responsible disclosure →
- Building community: helping others, sharing knowledge, respecting boundaries.
Edge cases we judge case-by-case
- Security research on third-party services — we look for authorization and intent.
- "Ironic" or "meme" harmful content — still harmful. Intent doesn't launder it.
- Multi-accounting and evading blocks — always a violation.
Enforcement scale
| Severity | Typical response |
|---|---|
| Low (spam, minor rule-breaks) | Warning + content removal |
| Medium (harassment, abuse) | Timed suspension |
| High (fraud, doxxing, severe abuse) | Permanent removal + possible report |
| Critical (child safety) | Permanent removal + law enforcement, always |
⚖️ Legal basis & applicable law
These are the primary provisions that anchor this page. They are cited as article — statute — jurisdiction so you can verify each one against the official text.
| Provision | What it governs here |
|---|---|
Art. 138ab, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Computer trespass (computervredebreuk) — unauthorized access. |
Art. 138b, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Obstructing access to or use of automated systems (DDoS-style attacks). |
Art. 139c, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Intercepting or recording data with a technical device. |
Art. 139d, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Obtaining data that was not intended for you (data espionage). |
Art. 285, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Threats — including threats made in chat. |
Art. 137c, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Public group defamation on grounds of race, religion, or orientation. |
Art. 261, Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Netherlands | Defamation of a person (smaad). |
18 U.S.C. §1030 (CFAA), United States | US computer-fraud statute for unauthorized access. |
CETS No. 185 (Budapest Convention on Cybercrime), Council of Europe | International framework criminalizing illegal access, interception, and interference. |
⚖️
Citations use the format article — parent statute — jurisdiction so you can look each one up. This page is a working framework, not legal advice.