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.

▲

Nevermark 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

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!

	▲	AuthAuth 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ok thats a great idea but we need to know how are you going to incorporate ai?

▲

frauhaus 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	energy123 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		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.