Everything that governs how CineMind operates — editorial standards, AI methodology, privacy, safety, and legal — in one place.
CineMind runs live, in front of audiences, often on channels where a bad response is permanent once it is clipped. That raises the bar for transparency, so this page collects everything that governs how the product behaves and how we handle what it produces on your stream.
Each linked document reflects current practice and carries a date. If something changes materially, the date moves and the change is described inside the document rather than slipped in silently.
Editorial Policy
How content is created, reviewed, and corrected.
AI Content Methodology
How we use AI — and where humans stay in the loop.
Responsible AI Statement
Safety, privacy, and fairness principles.
Privacy Policy
What we collect, why, and how to control it.
Terms of Service
The agreement between us and you.
Cookie Policy
Cookies, analytics, and advertising trackers.
Disclaimer
Educational content, not professional advice.
Refund Policy
Subscription refunds and cancellations.
Contact
Reach editorial, support, or security.
Safety on a live broadcast
The guessing engine is constrained before it reaches your overlay: spoilers for recent releases are withheld unless you explicitly unlock a title, and responses that would be unsafe, defamatory or degrading to a person or community are blocked rather than softened. No guardrail is perfect, which is why every stream has a one-click way to report a response to us and why those reports go to the publisher the same day.
You keep control of the material. Titles can be locked in settings, categories can be disabled, and the overlay can be muted mid-segment without ending the session.
Where AI is used, and where it is not
AI generates guesses, banter and article drafts. It does not decide editorial policy, moderate reports about itself, or publish anything on this site unreviewed. Written content carries an AI-assisted, human-reviewed disclosure, and the methodology page describes what the models draft and what a person has to approve.
Your data, your audience's data
Your sessions are scoped to your account. We do not sell transcripts or reader data and we do not pass conversation content to third parties for training. Chat reactions piped into the overlay are processed to display votes and are not retained as a marketing list. You can export or delete your data from your account at any time.
Cookies split into essential sign-in cookies, aggregate analytics and advertising cookies. The cookie policy names each category and explains how to withdraw consent, including inside the Browser Source.
Limits worth knowing
CineMind is entertainment. Its guesses are inferences from patterns, not verified facts, and it will occasionally be confidently wrong on air — that is part of the format, but it means nothing it says should be treated as a factual claim about a real person, studio or release. The disclaimer sets out the full scope.
Why you should — and should not — trust what you read here
Our standard
Craft claims are checked against the film, not against other people's writing about the film. If an essay says a sequence runs on eleven shots, someone counted them. Where a detail is reported from a secondary source — a director's interview, a cinematographer's commentary — it is attributed rather than absorbed.
Where an argument is interpretation rather than fact, the essay says so. 'The cut implies' and 'the cut is' are different claims and are written differently.
Where AI is involved
Research and first drafts are AI-assisted against public sources. Watching, judgement, verification and the decision to publish are human. No essay about how a scene works is published without a person having examined the scene.
Pieces that are revised over time carry a version indicator, so an updated date means an actual re-reading rather than a rebuild.
Independence
No studio, distributor, streamer or festival pays for coverage, sees a piece before publication, or influences what gets written. Advertising is served programmatically and is walled off from editorial decisions entirely.
Subscriptions fund the work, which biases us towards making close reading look valuable. The honest counterweight is publishing the cases where technique analysis explains nothing, and those run here too.
What this is not
It is not a consumer review service. There is no score, no recommendation engine trying to fill your evening, and no attempt to tell you whether a film is worth your ticket.
The assistant has not watched anything. It reasons from public writing and from what you describe, which makes it a good sparring partner and a poor witness — a distinction the interface is built to keep visible.