I don’t think anyone questions the “point” of the app. But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

You’re not adding much to the “this app is appropriate” argument.

In the current environment, at-risk people (women, immigrants, etc) who might have “at-risk” activities (abortion, immigration, etc) don’t have the luxury of relying on a privacy policy. I am not blaming them, I am simply stating how it must be if they are to avoid adverse actions.

This particular instance involved poorly secured data; what happens when warrantless demands are made by the government?

The Tea debacle proves that sensitive data cannot be trusted once out of your hands.

Everyone is talking about the poor security practices, which is fair. Or they are talking about the appropriateness of such an app existing, which is also fair.

But the immediate take away should be, especially in today’s political environment, that we cannot and should not trust sensitive data that leaves our device, particularly if you are of any kind of non privileged group.

There are a couple of safeguards, but by and large you can. And terminal is a pre-installed Apple app, of course it’s Apple “approved.”

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

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.

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.

That may have been plausible in 2016 (when Hillary was running,) but not in 2020 and 2024. There’s zero chance the DNC would’ve sat on evidence that would’ve convicted Trump to protect Bill.

I actually think Clinton is not on the list. Not because I don’t think he’s capable of such acts (which I tentatively do) but because engaging in such acts as a former president and with a wife with lofty political ambitions is a pretty high bar. And, perhaps most of all, with this congress and this DOJ and this president, if Clinton was on the list we’d absolutely know it by now.