A more ironic outcome couldn't have happened
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
313 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
73379 readers
4145 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
S2 Underground has a great video about this. It's basically a spy app with national security implications.
People using their military IDs for account verification and location data found in their pictures lays the argument that this data could be used for blackmail.
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
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.
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
Yup. It sounds like they were following security worst practices.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Honestly it seems like a weapon that can too easily be used for defamation
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›