The irony of a doxxing app being wrecked by the anonymous is too much for me!

It's not a doxxing app:

"Tea was founded by Sean Cook, a tech innovator inspired by his mother’s unsettling encounters with online dating, including catfishing and meeting men with hidden criminal pasts. His goal? Create a women-only space where users can post honest reviews, red flags, and personal stories about men they’ve dated. Unlike traditional dating apps, Tea isn’t about swiping for matches—it’s about safety. The app offers tools like background checks, catfish verification through “Catfish Finder AI,” and a secure community forum called “The Tea Party Group Chat.” Plus, 10% of its profits go to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, amplifying its commitment to women’s safety.

The app’s anonymous platform is its heart, letting women share warnings without fear. One user’s story stands out: Sarah, a 28-year-old from Chicago, posted about her ex, who seemed charming but turned violent. After escaping the relationship, she learned he was active on dating apps. Her Tea post detailed his behavior, and later, another user reached out on social media, thanking her for the warning that kept her from a dangerous date."

https://www.hypefresh.com/new-tea-app-lets-women-warn-others...

Women who were sexually assaulted tried to warn other women about their assaulter on the app. Anon doxxed these sexual assault victims, re-victimizing them. Anon thinks that it's men who were victimized and want to take revenge on these women who experienced sexual assault.

It's expected that anon is misogynist, and now the talking point is that these women are perpetrators of misandry who got what they deserve.

You can’t just quote from a PR puff piece and expect anyone to be convinced it is not a doxxing app.

The proof is in the pudding.

It was built for doxxing and quite potentially spreading lies about men and on top of that, they doxxed all of their users, too. They pretty much doxxed everyone who used the app or was mentioned on the platform.

I don’t see how it is not a doxxing app, but go ahead and find me another PR article that says it is the best thing since sliced bread and the founders should be saints.

I should create an app called “Dox.com”.

The selling point is you sign up and can share, support, amplify fellow doxers. A community for the non-Chan-ish, but Chan-ish, crowd to commune.

But when your in, it looks like your the first sign up.

To you. To the rest of the world all your sign up info is on DoxedMyself.com.

But I don’t have the time. So feel free to Y-combinate to your hearts worth! On me!

Ok thats a great idea but we need to know how are you going to incorporate ai?

I don’t know the ratio of real to fake info on Tea, but all ways to provide information about someone are subject to fabrication of inaccurate information.

Many years ago when newspapers, magazines, or books wrote about someone, at least some of the time they may have tried to verify part of the information.

Today, there’s very little expectation that something on an app or website has been partially or thoroughly fact-checked.

For the sake of argument, let’s say 20% of the data is fabricated.

If 80% of the information on Tea about others being a safety risk were true, would that be worth chancing that 20% would have false information spread about them, mostly quietly to a small percentage of the population in a way that didn’t really affect their lives substantially?

I’m not defending Tea losing their users’ data nor defending those that spread disinformation.

However, if the majority of the data were correct and helped others, and if the incorrect information didn’t destroy or substantially affect someone, then I think it may have been better to have had the 80% truth, if it were to have prevented violent crime.

Also newspapers would generally only discuss public figures or major crimes, not smear small time individuals who lack the funds to pursue legal remedy. This app is truly disgusting. If you support it, do not talk to me.

Apparently, the red flags also include "has ghosted me" and "is married." Now, those are valid reasons to not date someone, but it's not safety. Safety is just the excuse, just like it is in so many other cases.

It's fucked up that you can't have an honest app to keep people safe, but the makers could have known the problems in advance, and probably did.

> One user’s story stands out

In which precisely nothing happened. We don't even know the nature of the alleged violence.

> It's expected that anon is misogynist

Did you just give a negative impression of someone you don't know?

> Did you just give a negative impression of someone you don't know?

Anon doxxed women who might have restraining orders against violent stalkers, and they assumed that female coders created the female-based app by referring to "vibe-coding DEI hires".

Why are you defending a doxxer hacker?

Walking through an open door is not hacking.

Curious, have you tried entering people houses when the door is open?

That’s not a great analogy but it is one that courts have been using until recently when they admitted that it wasn’t a great analogy.

A better analogy would be using a box in a bush in a public park to store your customers information.

Because they are *cking BASED and I’m tired of pretending that’s not the case.

Was it Anon again? My God, she's everywhere.

Why are you defending blatant and exceptional incompetence?

Also I don’t think there was much actual “hacking” involved?

Regardless if you throw out a box full of other people’s passports/driver licenses/etc. out your window you can’t really blame the people who picked them up for not bringing them back to you.

I don't care about the company and I'm not defending it. I don't have sympathy for the bad faith gossipers getting doxxed. But there are going to be legitimate users who gravitated towards the app for the real safety need. Doxxing this kind of user base means real women are going to get killed by their obsessive stalkers.

It was a choice to exfiltrate this data and distribute it on 4chan.

yeah we can blame the 4chan user and his fans all you want but boy what a blunder, did the company just think "security by obscurity" or something? its just like the march of bad software and practices out there

If guy keeps ghosting a lot of women, women will see him as more attractive due to massive abundance.

You are getting down-voted, but "playing hard to get" has truths in it. The women I rejected keep coming around all the time, whether it is month later, or a year later.

“is bald” is another one.

> One user’s story stands out: Sarah, a 28-year-old from Chicago, posted about her ex, who seemed charming but turned violent. After escaping the relationship, she learned he was active on dating apps. Her Tea post detailed his behavior

How hard would it be to believe that none of that was true and the woman was being vindictive?

People can be shitty, including women.

They can, but rates of domestic violence are so high that it seems reasonable to want to do something about it. I dated online a few years ago and met my partner. In that time I met 4 women for dates who talked about really scary behaviour from previous men they’d met. These weren’t even relationships… just dates they’d met for coffee or whatever. These women had no reason to lie or exaggerate to me - and I’d probably prompted the conversation by asking about “how has it been on hinge” or whatever. I think we need to remember throughout all of this just how badly behaved many men are, and how normal misogyny has become.

This is a very sensible topic ... and sensible topics need careful solutions, not 'let's reinvent a medevial town square's pillory'.

Western society has become actively anti-dating lately (think: ever since the 1980s). People, especially women, are actively encouraged to scrutinise even minor behaviour for red flags, after all, every man is a potential serial killer. This is so prevalent that we have made movies about that sort of paranoia ... and there are people in treatment over it. Clinically, this is often referred to as hypervigilance/paranoia syndrome, a pattern related to PTSD — both as a consequence of trauma and, paradoxically, as a source of relational dysfunction.

This is not meant to downplay the reality of actual assaults. But it points to a deeper systemic issue: The drive to protect against potential violence has, in some circles, taken on a life of its own - and in doing so, it has poisoned trust.

So - I do not claim your 4 women were not at some point scared by a guy during a date. But what used to be considered 'assertive, reliable, masculine' behaviour in the 1950s has become 'prelude to slaughter' these days, especially when other factors are present (e.g. 'he doesn't turn out to be Prince Charming that I expected' or 'he decided to split the bill').

So ... if there is an actual case of domestic violence, the solution is not to create an instrument that can be badly abused and does not follow rule of law - it is to go to ... law enforcement, and let the courts deal with it. IF the guy is a problem, let them put him away, rather than slandering him online.

For a sense of scale here. One guy had brought a bag of sex toys to a first date.

Another called (a different woman) a “dirty bitch” when she declined a second date.

Amongst my female friends, I’ve become aware only in my late 40s just how many have suffered sexual assault outside of relationships or controlling and abusive behaviour within them.

I guess what I’m saying is that I think women being vigilant is rational behaviour. In my twenties and thirties I just lacked the imagination to see that colleagues and even male friends would behave in this way, but that can and have.

I don’t think this site is necessarily the right way to fix the problem, but I can totally understand the motivation.

Thank you for providing scale. From how you describe it, these two examples - while unpleasant - likely fall below the threshold for criminal prosecution. And it’s precisely in that gray area where public shaming platforms risk becoming instruments of mob justice.

The “sex toy guy” (and yes, I now imagine the most awkward and presumptuous version of that scenario - perhaps with a flourish of presentation) is clearly socially tone-deaf. But if no coercion or violence took place: Should his name and face be broadcast online so he can be branded “The Dildo King” for life?

The “dirty bitch” guy? Rude and vulgar, certainly. But how many women have made disparaging comments about men — their height, their hair, their genitals - sometimes in front of them, sometimes with friends? We should strive for dignity and respect on both sides. If we accept social shaming as a norm, it shouldn’t surprise us when the pendulum swings both ways - and no one wins in that world. Was the woman in this case threatened or harmed beyond a verbal outburst?

Being in my mid-40s, I’ve also witnessed what a false or misguided accusation can do to a man - careers destroyed, relationships severed, even suicides.

What we’re dealing with is a cultural and moral challenge - not a technological one. And cultural problems can only be solved through dialogue, mutual respect, and shared norms - not through factionalism or digital vigilantism.

What kind of dialogue do you expect to have with these two individuals?

First: "That makes me deeply uncomfortable, so I'm going to leave"

Second: Tough to say, probably nothing if that's the end of the communication. I hear stories pretty regularly of men being misled into taking someone out on the first date, paying for it, and then finding out a second date or anything beyond that was never on the table for one reason or another. It's definitely rude and vulgar, and people should reserve that for special cases.

You sound bitter about women saying "yeah I'll give it a try, I guess" instead of just saying "no". That first date that probably won't be a second date is your chance to do your sales pitch.

Overall, I think people are bitter that dating has such a low probability chance in providing the outcome they desire. But you have to know that going in; "you look good in these 3 pictures and I liked your witty quote" is not necessarily going to lead to a lifetime of happiness. You probably have to expect 1000 failures for every success. But you only need one success.

[delayed]

Before birth control pills women had to make sure that they were never alone with a man.

a large part of why nunneries and convents exist is to give women a safe haven from men.

Also to get rid of unwanted/illegitimate/“misbehaving” daughters, sisters other relatives.

I'm not disputing any of that but the idea that you can trust what you read on an app like that is the issue.

Trust is a hard thing to come by online, even when people aren't anonymous and speaking publicly (Facebook or any other online place where one might use their real name). Giving people the cover of privacy from the person they are reporting about isn't going to increase the veracity of what's posted.

We already know how people behave online. It's either naive, ignorant or negligent to think otherwise.

I’m a guy. I was stabbed by one ex, while she was drunk, dated another girl for a year only for her to suddenly drop the “my boyfriend in the army is coming home” bombshell, and had another relationship that turned into violence and stalking.

I think we need to remember that this isn’t a one-way street.

That's some luck you got there

Of course it’s not, but it’s highly asymmetrical. It’s especially asymmetrical around physical violence and physical vulnerability of women.

> In New Zealand, the twenty-one year Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, published in 1999, reported that of their sample of 1,037 people, 27% of women and 34% of men reported being physically abused by a partner, with 37% of women and 22% of men reporting they had perpetrated intimate partner violence.

> A growing body of international research indicated that men and women experience Intimate partner violence in some similar proportions. An example might be a recent survey from Canada's national statistical agency that concluded that "equal proportions of men and women reported being victims of spousal violence during the preceding 5 years (4% respectively)."

> The aforementioned surveys indicate that small proportions of men (less than 20% of victims) will tell the police or a health professional about their victimization. This may be due to well-grounded fears that they will be scorned, ridiculed, or disbelieved by these authorities.

Your point that it's "highly asymmetrical" is just wrong.

> Indeed, a recent research paper by Dr. Elizabeth Bates from the University of Cumbria found that the overarching experience of male IPV victims was that "no one would ever believe me."

And it directly contributes to the toxic attitude around male victims of domestic violence.

Thanks for sharing! I was surprised by it to be honest. The country I’m coming from husbands beating wives were quite common, and I don’t think statistics was as equal as this one.

Homicide rates are still asymmetrical, but I was surprised that also not as much (like 1.5 times difference).

The reported incidences account for the bias - as the parent notes, men are much less likely to report domestic violence.

When I was stabbed, I took myself to hospital and said I did it myself, accidentally - she was a trainee barrister and I didn’t want to fuck her career up, plus “my girlfriend stabbed me” is usually going to get you “oh yeah, and what did you do to deserve it?” and police questioning in response.

What is the expected behavior, that a violent person won't ever use dating apps after a relationship is over?

The app might have been useful if women didn't select men exactly for the red flags then wonder why they get bit by it

this app is replicating a set of women only facebook groups. there's one for every major US city. it's sort of an if you know you know situation.

the vast majority of posts are speculation on someone being douchey or a cheater. women in their twenties seem to really enjoy browsing through the gossip.

I'm pretty sure women have always been gossiping and warning eachother about which man not to share an elevator with.

To be fair, and not that you're saying otherwise: that seems like a pretty natural and chill response to the fact that men have always been assaulting and raping them. Like, it would be weird if women didn't ever speculate on which men could be a threat.

It's an app that exposes the identity of people against their will. That's the exact definition of doxxing.

Whether the original intent was honourable or not - or if they decide to spend part of their income to a honourable cause - does not factor in to the nature of the system.

Worse, in some jurisdictions (I’m not certain about the US specifics), this kind of unsanctioned exposure could actively hinder legal prosecution of actual predators. If a person is publicly accused on a non-official platform before trial, any resulting lawsuit might be thrown out on grounds of prejudicial exposure or even perjury. The accused could claim that the testimony is tainted or retaliatory — particularly if the platform enables near-anonymous posting without formal vetting^1.

[1] Yes, the app collects driver’s licenses. But let’s be honest: in the U.S., a fake driver’s license is practically a rite of passage. Entire generations of underage teens have used them to get into clubs and bars. If that’s your trust anchor, you don’t have much of one.

So the system is fucked, as I see it.

It feels broken because it is broken. But if you weaken procedural safeguards to ‘fix’ it, you don’t get justice - you get lynch mobs. Sometimes quite literally. There have been people beaten to death by neighbors because they were declared a sexual offender online - which later turned out to be wrong.

A criminal justice system has to protect even the accused against injustice. If it doesn't, it's not justice, but just a kangaroo court.

This is not irony.

> That app made a lot of basement dwelling chuds furious, to the point that someone was willing to risk prison time for a shot at harming those women.

Although undeniably, the data being mostly women does bring in the chuds so it's not entirely wrong, I think this is a shallow take for a couple of reasons:

1. If any app stored user data this freely, it would be stolen and gloated over on 4chan.

2. This app, which I'm learning about just now, seems deeply problematic. It's a place for people to publically share and shame other people that they don't like. The genders of the people doing this doesn't matter, this is called doxxing and it's not ok, no matter how it gets dressed up (women's safety, children's safety, anti-terrorism, anti-drugs, whatever)

Are you being serious right now? No one forced those people to upload their data to this sketchy site. Everyone with one brain cell would know the repercussions of uploading IDs to a no-name site

Exactly, this is why if I walk down a street that looks sketchy and I get assaulted/robbed, it’s not a crime and no one can be charged!

Any bad behavior should be legal if the victim should have realized the warning signs.

i think you are assuming a level of computer literacy that doesn't exist in the general population. most people seem to not actually know where data goes when they put it in their phone, how that data is used, or what actually happens on computers in general. They mostly appear as magic to them.

The problem is as follows: There is a subset of the population that tends to trust things you say, and this subset is fairly large.

The solution is that we need to make it so that the majority no longer trusts anything people say.

There will be no negative knock-on effects for this, I'm sure.

--

To be less glib, I don't really see a good outcome of this in the long term. If everyone developed the right level of op-sec given the amount of bad actors on the internet, we'd effectively never communicate with another person again.

I am being downvoted for being real. How is the general populous not aware of it? That's wild. Again, you have to be aware of this. It's like privacy 101

The general population hasn't taken privacy 101. They get asked to email their id to their doctor. If turns out the doctor also hasn't taken privacy 101.

Naw. That’s victim blaming. People have a right to believe that if an online service or app requires identify verification that the data will be protected. If you provide your credit card to uber you assume they put a password on the database and do the things required to protect it.

The idiot no-technical founder failed to do even the most simple and obvious data protection.

Vibecoding is not an excuse. Ask how to secure the data and the AI will answer.

"Do not share personal information online" is a warning that has been heeded since the internet was created. You don't need tech savvy to understand that message, just as you don't need to know anything about zoos to understand "Do not enter the lion cage".

With tech savvy it is possible to understand the dangers well enough to dismiss the common advice in certain cases, but if you don't have it — you had better listen to what others are telling you. If you wish to dismiss it, you are on your own.

I can totally imagine our intel agencies and foreign state actors having a field day with this, as mirrored here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWTyvvb8GFs

Victim blaming isn't right. Yes, they could have exhibited more caution. No, it's not their fault.

It's the only way people learn. Real world is not going to hold your hand, real world is full of facebooks, not signals

Of course it is right. Victims need to be blamed, else they'll just stupidly do it again. That’s what “blame” is for. But, sure, if 'Tea' snuck up behind these people then there would be some room for sympathy.

But this case is more like you sticking your fingers into an electrical socket, after being warned continuously not to do that, and then crying that it was the utility company's fault for putting something dangerous in your face.

We've been told since the advent of the internet to not share personal information online. If you want to take the risk, you have to accept the consequences. However, in this case the story is even worse as the intent of these people was to violate that rule not just for themselves but for other people as well.

Vigilante justice is wrong, but at the same time, I have a hard time calling registered users of a Kiwi Farms clone "victims."

If I lend you my car, and you park in Berkeley leaving your laptop open on the passenger seat... Yes it's your fault my window got smashed and I'd like you to pay for it. Is it your fault your laptop got stolen? Maybe, that's just semantics. But my window being broken is your fault because we all know thieves exist and look for items on seats.

So if you upload your id to a flash in the pan website, who's fault is it when the rookie website turns out to have expectedly low security?

The car was at least be locked and have windows closed. In this case, it was an unlocked car with doors and windows open.

Look at what this site does.

You upload other people’s personal information on it to run background checks on them.

So, many of the victims probably haven’t heard of the company.

"No one forced these people to get on that non-airworthy airplane."

People should not have to understand every technical field in order to participate in society. This is what regulatory bodies are for.

> Being so careless with people's personal data should be a major crime, tbh. If I manipulated thousands of people to let me scan their passports and various other bits of personal info, then just left the copies around the city for people to find, I'd be prosecuted, and rightfully so.

Good analogy. Also, this is the main point of the EU GDPR.

It is, in the EU.

California car dealerships are sometimes visited by the DMV inspector, an actual officer of some kind technically.

If they find any driver license photo copies, even turned over inside an unlocked desk drawer, the fine to a dealership is $10k per occurrence.

Is it weird that internet companies do not have this kind of oversight?

how much money can their lobbiests throw at the gub'mnt compared to the US car dealership associations?

Car dealership associations have pretty impressive lobbying capabilities. In many (most?) states you must buy a new vehicle from a dealer - it's against the law to buy direct from the manufacturer.

FYI the original post of the thread is now "This post is not available at this time."