this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
348 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

73656 readers
4037 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I feel that the app filled a need of women we should not ignore. But the app, both this specific app and also the overall concept, is just too rife with downsides to be workable.

So we, as men and as society need to reevaluate why women feel the need for such an app, and reinvest in the criminal justice system to hold victimizers more accountable.

It’s okay to call this app and similar Facebook groups unacceptable. But that’s not enough, we must also call for stronger protections for victims of criminal behavior.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It would be interesting to see something similar that required accusations to be backed up with evidence. Police reports, court proceedings and results, news articles etc.

It would also be a lot safer, legally speaking, for the service provider.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago

Something like Megan’s law but for domestic violence. I’m still not thrilled with the potential for abuse, but at least it wouldn’t be hearsay.

I’m sure the police unions would object, for obvious reasons.

[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think there must be a way to deliver on the value of the app without it being the privacy/public exposure nightmare it sounds like. Speaking naively, perhaps a setup where you can only speak about a person with those who have actually matched with them.

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There’s no “matching” on this app, because men aren’t allowed. By its very design, you can’t avoid the unilateral one-sidedness.

[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Sorry, I do understand that, I was just thinking of an improvement that might help. I thought having the same phone number might work too but that gets dodgier.

[–] atk007@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why did the app had the government IDs and credit card data to begin with? The app looks like an obvious phishing scam/ Honeypot situation.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

that's a great(terrible) idea for a sex trafficking psyop. just get yourself a female spokesperson and make it a platform that gives a voice to women who have survived abuse. they'll willingly give you all their information on where to find them and their psych profiles on how to manipulate them.

fucked up, but really shows how fucked up apps are in general and how much power we give to them over ourselves.

[–] mhague@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

How many red flags do you need to collect before you get a free cat?

[–] Bubbey@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

A more ironic outcome couldn't have happened

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think of the "bad" dates I would want to be able to warn other women of that didn't rise to the level of calling the cops. The guy who ordered triple the food and drinks I did and skipped out on the bill. The guy who flat out lied about multiple things and then got irate when I politely excused myself from the date. The MAGA weirdo who went on an unhinged rant about how I needed to submit to him because God said so. I imagine some men have comparable experiences with some anti-social women. The experiences coming to mind were not illegal, but were absolutely things I want to spare my fellow humans from.

I would prefer the dating apps themselves have some mechanism for disincentivizing anti-social behaviors. It would have to be more than a simple 5-star rating.

I wonder how it would work IRL to offer the ability to write a few sentences in response to prompts about a date. The written review is not published as-is, but is used in grouping of many reviews to give a summary about a person. Like the summary product reviews on Amazon now. "Bill's dates found he was prompt and polite. Some dates expressed discomfort at some of his political views" and "Bob's dates warn he is often late and is quick to use foul language to describe women. Multiple dates report no intention to communicate with Bob further". "Ben's dates report he has skipped out on the bill repeatedly, and sends unsolicited dick pics. Multiple dates have blocked him".

The group summary gives a buffer so the person reviewed doesn't know which specific date said what. And ensures the summary doesn't include negative comments about a person unless multiple dates of theirs independently report similar experiences.

Of course a bad actor could ditch their dating profile and start fresh any time they build up enough negative reviews to make their summary look bad. And of course the reviews and the summaries would have to be secured tighter than "Tea" is.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

The experiences coming to mind were not illegal, but were absolutely things I want to spare my fellow humans from.

What about a guy who had a panic attack in the very beginning and couldn't stop talking about his deceased dad, then about aunts and uncles, then about the dog, then about architecture, then didn't get the hint because of all the shaking, got petrified when hinted at an alcohol element in the continuation of the meeting and in the end didn't even understand a very direct hints at "only silence can save this" and having at least a sleepover?.. Who only became kinda normal after taking a sedative next morning, still shaking.

Just describing one negative experience I have provided in the past, and that while yeah, it wasn't too cool - maybe lifelong shame is not what I deserve for that ...

(Yes, I know that girl was a hero)

The group summary gives a buffer so the person reviewed doesn’t know which specific date said what. And ensures the summary doesn’t include negative comments about a person unless multiple dates of theirs independently report similar experiences.

That can't be done without somehow verifying identities of all the people involved. Unless the review app is the same as the dating app. Then there are various technical variants, like some cryptographic connection between the reviewed person's identity, the token representing one date, and a temporary identity for the reviewer, used to sign the review message. Something like that.

But that only for the entity doing the summary, which will have to be trusted with the original reviews. And that "buffer" will remove any kind of verification, unless it's something egghead-smart like a smart contract forming the review on every client, which means every client can also see the original reviews. So I dunno.

Of course a bad actor could ditch their dating profile and start fresh any time they build up enough negative reviews to make their summary look bad. And of course the reviews and the summaries would have to be secured tighter than “Tea” is.

Honestly things like this should work like some hybrid of Briar and Freenet. Just entrusting it to a centralized service is as stupid as using Facebook. And in this specific case Briar model is kinda fine - if you synchronize with everyone using the application. You don't need to have the reviews from everyone about everyone, just about people roaming the same general area.

Sounds MAGA level IT and dev.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 126 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Tea was storing its users’ sensitive information on Firebase, a Google-owned backend cloud storage and computing service.

Every time. With startups, it's always an unsecured Firebase or S3 bucket.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My hey we’re probably using Firestore as their database without authenticating their api calls to firebase functions. Basically leaving their api endpoints open to the public Internet.

They could have connected service account and used some kind of auth handshake between that and generate a temporary login token based on user credentials and the service account oauth credentials to access the api. but they probably just had everything set to unauthenticated

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yup. It sounds like they were following security worst practices.

[–] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I get doing that in Dev for testing before launch, but in production? that’s insane.

Like it has to either be a junior developer playing the role of lead or some serious lack of web dev fundamentals haha

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago

I'd argue that it should not even be done in Dev. Dev, staging/testing, and prod environments should all be as close to one another as possible, especially for infra like datastores.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 72 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Honestly it seems like a weapon that can too easily be used for defamation

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Velypso@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ah nice.

Time to implement a social score. Those who rate highly have better access to social areas.

Those who rate lower are fucked for the rest of their life.

This sounds like such an amazing idea that has no shortcomings whatsoever!

Edit: /s

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 33 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Change the target to any other group and the outrage would be 100-10000 fold bigger.

Try it out, instead of Women rating men, try subbing in various minority groups or races.

Bonus points for the most offensive combinations.....

e.g. Russians rating Ukrainians in your area....it can get pretty bad...I can think of many worse combos.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 38 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I think the key reason this was seen as not being terribly offensive was the fact that women are disproportionately more likely than men to be on the receiving end of tons of different negative consequences when dating, thus to a degree justifying them having more of a safe space where their comfort and safety is prioritized.

1

However I think a lot of people are also recognizing now that such an app has lots of downsides that come as a result of that kind of structure, like false allegations being given too much legitimacy, high amounts of sensitive data storage, negative interactions being blown out of proportion, etc. I also think that this is yet another signature case of "private market solution to systemic problem" that only kind of addresses the symptoms, but not the actual causes of these issues that are rooted more in our societal standards and expectations of the genders, upbringing, depictions in media, etc.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›