7 ms·

The fact that it verifies by ID scan is also not safe at all for a million different reasons. A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee -

The fact that it verifies by ID scan is also not safe at all for a million different reasons. A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. The fee filters out 99% of the trolls out there (who wants to pay to troll) and also gives the app/website admins access to billing info - name, mailing address, phone number, etc - without the need for a full ID scan. So the tiny amount of trolls that do pay to troll would have to enter accurate deanonymizing payment information to even get on the system in the first place. And it can be made so only admins know peoples' true identities. For the user facing parts, pseudonyms and usernames are still very possible - again so long as everyone understands up front that such a platform would ultimately not be anonymous on the back end. But oh no, that won't hypergrow the company and dominate the internet! Think of all the people in India and China you're missing out on! /sarcasm

fragmede 1y ago
[flagged]
- whatsupdog 1y ago
  Imagine flipping the genders and writing this comment in another context: "Women will go to great lengths to try and manipulate men. $2/month just gets you less crazy bitches", and imagine the outcry and downvotes. However it's totally normal and acceptable to bunch all men into a singular group and demean 50% of the population.
  - blks 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      Men seem to attack women more often that the other way around but both directions are signifcant https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.ht... Notably: —- About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported a related impact. —- Over 61 million women and 53 million men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
      - pyth0 1y ago
        > sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking > psychological aggression Not at all downplaying the seriousness of emotional and psychological abuse, but these are very different things. Which is the main reason that the concept of this app doesn't bother me much. The immediate physical safety risks of dating as a woman are significantly greater than for men.
        PaulHoule 1y ago
        Sure, but it's about a factor of two -- the difference between the sun at noon and 5pm, not the difference between night and day. Broken bones heal, but psychological wounds can last a lifetime -- and cut that lifetime short either through self-harm or the impact on chronic diseases. Sexual assault is so problematic because it has a very long term psychological impact on people.
        opello 1y ago
        It also seems obvious that a physical wound very likely occurs in a context that may also create a psychological one.
      - bigfudge 1y ago
        From memory I think those numbers for men include those in same sex relationships. Also worth noting that men are much more likely to be physically or psychologically attacked by other men than they are by women. I’m not minimising the idea that women can Be violent, but we need to be careful to have in proportion. If you look at the most serious categories of harm, or only murder, the differences really are very stark.
        _0ffh 1y ago
        Male same-sex relationships have the lowest numbers of abuse between all four categories, btw.
    - b59831 1y ago
      > Because we live in patriarchal culture It's crazy how often this is used to justify awful behavior. At what point do you have to define and actually prove the existence of "patriarchal culture"?
      - blks 1y ago
        “awful behaviour” such as?
    - Levitz 1y ago
      But you are just explaining why you are bigoted, bigotry which, in turn, you imply explains why you don't think it's wrong to be sexist. Sexist enough to disregard the importance of publicly sharing people's information. Do you not see how this is deeply wrong?
      - blks 1y ago
        I’m a man myself, I have dated both men and women, and I did once experienced sexual assault by a men. From a personal experience, I know for example a person in my friends group who turned to be a person that forces himself on drunken women at parties after they say no. And I don’t see anything wrong with letting all my friends know about this. I don’t really understand why you here feel so afraid of people gossiping online. I’m a man that sleeps with women and I am not afraid about them talking about me. Even if they loose some platform, you know, they will still talk to each other.
    - handedness 1y ago
      Would you pursue that line of justification if the issue were ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, and/or gender expression? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, and there are sound arguments for and against equating those things, but it seems like it merits consideration before one comments, not after.
    - whatsupdog 1y ago
      So you'll agree with the following?: Because we live in black crime culture and blacks do violently attack whites on much greater scale than the other way around. You don’t have to be even necessarily evil for that, honestly just some normalised behaviour in some black people can be enough to become a criminal for white people.
  - perks_12 1y ago
    I don't think you will find too many men being angry at your example comment just like no women will be pissed about what OP said about men. Don't be fragile.
  - strken 1y ago
    Your example isn't properly gender flipped. That would be "Women will go to great lengths to take revenge on their exes. $2/month just gets you less broke crazies." While the above statement would benefit from adding the word "Some" to the start, I'm not sure it would generate much outcry.
    - nailer 1y ago
      > $2/month just gets you less broke crazies. Women aren't evaluated on their income like men are, they are evaluated on their looks. An equivalent app would be something that lets men share if women are less attractive than their pictures.
  - bigfudge 1y ago
    You’re worrying about the wrong thing here. The fact that so many men do these kind of creepy behaviours, and that men who do them are largely indistinguishable from men you meet every day, means that from women’s perspective “men do creepy things, I need to be careful” is an entirely reasonable prior.
    - imtringued 1y ago
      And yet it is also bigotry towards the innocent.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        It is always interesting to see which prior probabilities are seen as acceptable for use and which are not. Humans have a very limited amount of time, and coupled with risk of physical danger, it should be expected for prior probabilities to be used. I would even go so far as to say necessary for long term survival. In this case, given the long, well established history of the subjugation of women by men, I would say they are well within their rights to be "careful".
    - chneu 1y ago
      It's reasonable but it's also self-fulfilling. Thinking every man is a predator is a great way to mostly meet male predators and wind up alone. On app dates, it's extremely obvious when the person you're sitting down with has the "every man is a predator" attitude. Being treated like that isn't fun. Then a lot of people wonder why all their dates fail or go nowhere or why they can't move outside the app.
konart 1y ago
>A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. That's Pure. And they have more than 5$ I believe.
dylan604 1y ago
you act like it's impossible to get payment credentials that have nothing to do with the user
- atomicnumber3 1y ago
  no, but it is _tremendously_ more difficult than email or even ID scans (unless you're doing actual verification, which is both more expensive and complicated than just charging a nominal fee or even just attaching a Card object to a stripe customer). Just getting to stand on top of an extremely robust existing system (payments) gets you so much adjacent help in keeping bad actors out, or at least getting it down to a human-team manageable level. It can be the difference between a viable business and not.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    › extremely robust existing system (payments) It is not, indeed. The first part is its goal: identity is secondary, the main purpose is money. It means a customer can put a fake name and address as long as the money part is considered OK. Most PSPs won't check the cardholder name (it can be used for fuzzy scoring, but exact match is a fool's errand). Address is usually only required for physical goods and won't be checked otherwise. And 3DSecure will shift the blame enough that the PSP won't need to care that much about the details. The second part is the whole mess that comes with payments. You'll become a card testing pot in no time, and you'll be dealing with all the fuss just to check identities, you'll soon be rising the token payment to a significant amount to cover the costs, and before you realize it half your business has shifted into payment handling.
    - MisterSandman 1y ago
      Payment systems are significantly more robust than taking a picture of an ID to prove you’re you.
      - dabockster 1y ago
        Especially if you only deal in government issued currency and refuse to use crypto. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency for a reason - we have tons of opaque and invisible systems in place to make sure it's rock solid. Systems that other countries either don't have entirely or rely on a series of privately owned systems that feel like chewing gum and string.
FiniteIntegral 1y ago
I think you underestimate the willingness of people to pay to troll, it may filter out people but an app that was (in theory) meant to be secure shouldn't think of a problem as filtering rather than securing. Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins. I think an app like this was doomed from the start and 4chan simply pulled the plug on an already leaking bathtub.
- msgodel 1y ago
  I've thought about buying throwaway phone numbers just to troll linkedin. I'd be surprised if people weren't finding ways to get accounts on apps like this for trolling. The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money.
  - dabockster 1y ago
    > The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money. You'd get the lulz. That in itself can be mentally satisfying. Tbh I've thought about trolling LinkedIn myself. It honestly needs to die.
- ada1981 1y ago
  Are there any premium troll Sites?
  - fooker 1y ago
    Twitter with check mark
    - ada1981 1y ago
      Great point.
- dabockster 1y ago
  > Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins. And now you have a better chance at pointing a finger at someone, at the very least. And the thought of that finger pointing would be enough to keep an admin on top of things.
rKarpinski 1y ago
Whats wrong with verifying the ID? The issue is they decided to roll their own extremely questionable service and insecurely store sensitive images in a public bucket Multiple SAAS vendors provide ID verification for ~$2/each. They should have eaten that fee when it was small and then found a way pass it onto the users later
- dabockster 1y ago
  > Whats wrong with verifying the ID? - IDs usually contain enough information to totally steal a person's identity (beyond just their name and mailing address). - IDs usually have secret security mechanisms beyond what's publicly known for a government to verify if an ID is real or not. - 3rd party business systems can only verify the publicly known security stuff. And because that security stuff is public, it can get faked easily. - IDs are super easy to fake. - The only entity that can totally verify an ID is a government, because you'd have to verify the secret security mechanisms as well. And there's a million reasons why you wouldn't necessarily want a government to verify an ID for a private business transaction.
jandrese 1y ago
> A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. The fee filters out 99% of the trolls out there Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith.
- kryogen1c 1y ago
  > Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith. So the same as it was before you could buy them?
- dabockster 1y ago
  Everything is still up to whoever is running the platform. I'm just saying that, from an web admin perspective, that $2/month works. And if it doesn't, you have their billing info to track trolls down irl if necessary.
raydev 1y ago
> who wants to pay to troll You've never visited X (formerly known as Twitter)?

fragmede 1y ago

[flagged]

whatsupdog 1y ago
Imagine flipping the genders and writing this comment in another context: "Women will go to great lengths to try and manipulate men. $2/month just gets you less crazy bitches", and imagine the outcry and downvotes. However it's totally normal and acceptable to bunch all men into a singular group and demean 50% of the population.
- blks 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    Men seem to attack women more often that the other way around but both directions are signifcant https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.ht... Notably: —- About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported a related impact. —- Over 61 million women and 53 million men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
    - pyth0 1y ago
      > sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking > psychological aggression Not at all downplaying the seriousness of emotional and psychological abuse, but these are very different things. Which is the main reason that the concept of this app doesn't bother me much. The immediate physical safety risks of dating as a woman are significantly greater than for men.
      - PaulHoule 1y ago
        Sure, but it's about a factor of two -- the difference between the sun at noon and 5pm, not the difference between night and day. Broken bones heal, but psychological wounds can last a lifetime -- and cut that lifetime short either through self-harm or the impact on chronic diseases. Sexual assault is so problematic because it has a very long term psychological impact on people.
        opello 1y ago
        It also seems obvious that a physical wound very likely occurs in a context that may also create a psychological one.
    - bigfudge 1y ago
      From memory I think those numbers for men include those in same sex relationships. Also worth noting that men are much more likely to be physically or psychologically attacked by other men than they are by women. I’m not minimising the idea that women can Be violent, but we need to be careful to have in proportion. If you look at the most serious categories of harm, or only murder, the differences really are very stark.
      - _0ffh 1y ago
        Male same-sex relationships have the lowest numbers of abuse between all four categories, btw.
  - b59831 1y ago
    > Because we live in patriarchal culture It's crazy how often this is used to justify awful behavior. At what point do you have to define and actually prove the existence of "patriarchal culture"?
    - blks 1y ago
      “awful behaviour” such as?
  - Levitz 1y ago
    But you are just explaining why you are bigoted, bigotry which, in turn, you imply explains why you don't think it's wrong to be sexist. Sexist enough to disregard the importance of publicly sharing people's information. Do you not see how this is deeply wrong?
    - blks 1y ago
      I’m a man myself, I have dated both men and women, and I did once experienced sexual assault by a men. From a personal experience, I know for example a person in my friends group who turned to be a person that forces himself on drunken women at parties after they say no. And I don’t see anything wrong with letting all my friends know about this. I don’t really understand why you here feel so afraid of people gossiping online. I’m a man that sleeps with women and I am not afraid about them talking about me. Even if they loose some platform, you know, they will still talk to each other.
  - handedness 1y ago
    Would you pursue that line of justification if the issue were ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, and/or gender expression? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, and there are sound arguments for and against equating those things, but it seems like it merits consideration before one comments, not after.
  - whatsupdog 1y ago
    So you'll agree with the following?: Because we live in black crime culture and blacks do violently attack whites on much greater scale than the other way around. You don’t have to be even necessarily evil for that, honestly just some normalised behaviour in some black people can be enough to become a criminal for white people.
- perks_12 1y ago
  I don't think you will find too many men being angry at your example comment just like no women will be pissed about what OP said about men. Don't be fragile.
- strken 1y ago
  Your example isn't properly gender flipped. That would be "Women will go to great lengths to take revenge on their exes. $2/month just gets you less broke crazies." While the above statement would benefit from adding the word "Some" to the start, I'm not sure it would generate much outcry.
  - nailer 1y ago
    > $2/month just gets you less broke crazies. Women aren't evaluated on their income like men are, they are evaluated on their looks. An equivalent app would be something that lets men share if women are less attractive than their pictures.
- bigfudge 1y ago
  You’re worrying about the wrong thing here. The fact that so many men do these kind of creepy behaviours, and that men who do them are largely indistinguishable from men you meet every day, means that from women’s perspective “men do creepy things, I need to be careful” is an entirely reasonable prior.
  - imtringued 1y ago
    And yet it is also bigotry towards the innocent.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      It is always interesting to see which prior probabilities are seen as acceptable for use and which are not. Humans have a very limited amount of time, and coupled with risk of physical danger, it should be expected for prior probabilities to be used. I would even go so far as to say necessary for long term survival. In this case, given the long, well established history of the subjugation of women by men, I would say they are well within their rights to be "careful".
  - chneu 1y ago
    It's reasonable but it's also self-fulfilling. Thinking every man is a predator is a great way to mostly meet male predators and wind up alone. On app dates, it's extremely obvious when the person you're sitting down with has the "every man is a predator" attitude. Being treated like that isn't fun. Then a lot of people wonder why all their dates fail or go nowhere or why they can't move outside the app.

konart 1y ago

>A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. That's Pure. And they have more than 5$ I believe.

dylan604 1y ago

you act like it's impossible to get payment credentials that have nothing to do with the user

atomicnumber3 1y ago
no, but it is _tremendously_ more difficult than email or even ID scans (unless you're doing actual verification, which is both more expensive and complicated than just charging a nominal fee or even just attaching a Card object to a stripe customer). Just getting to stand on top of an extremely robust existing system (payments) gets you so much adjacent help in keeping bad actors out, or at least getting it down to a human-team manageable level. It can be the difference between a viable business and not.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  › extremely robust existing system (payments) It is not, indeed. The first part is its goal: identity is secondary, the main purpose is money. It means a customer can put a fake name and address as long as the money part is considered OK. Most PSPs won't check the cardholder name (it can be used for fuzzy scoring, but exact match is a fool's errand). Address is usually only required for physical goods and won't be checked otherwise. And 3DSecure will shift the blame enough that the PSP won't need to care that much about the details. The second part is the whole mess that comes with payments. You'll become a card testing pot in no time, and you'll be dealing with all the fuss just to check identities, you'll soon be rising the token payment to a significant amount to cover the costs, and before you realize it half your business has shifted into payment handling.
  - MisterSandman 1y ago
    Payment systems are significantly more robust than taking a picture of an ID to prove you’re you.
    - dabockster 1y ago
      Especially if you only deal in government issued currency and refuse to use crypto. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency for a reason - we have tons of opaque and invisible systems in place to make sure it's rock solid. Systems that other countries either don't have entirely or rely on a series of privately owned systems that feel like chewing gum and string.

FiniteIntegral 1y ago

I think you underestimate the willingness of people to pay to troll, it may filter out people but an app that was (in theory) meant to be secure shouldn't think of a problem as filtering rather than securing. Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins. I think an app like this was doomed from the start and 4chan simply pulled the plug on an already leaking bathtub.

msgodel 1y ago
I've thought about buying throwaway phone numbers just to troll linkedin. I'd be surprised if people weren't finding ways to get accounts on apps like this for trolling. The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money.
- dabockster 1y ago
  > The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money. You'd get the lulz. That in itself can be mentally satisfying. Tbh I've thought about trolling LinkedIn myself. It honestly needs to die.
ada1981 1y ago
Are there any premium troll Sites?
- fooker 1y ago
  Twitter with check mark
  - ada1981 1y ago
    Great point.
dabockster 1y ago
> Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins. And now you have a better chance at pointing a finger at someone, at the very least. And the thought of that finger pointing would be enough to keep an admin on top of things.

rKarpinski 1y ago

Whats wrong with verifying the ID? The issue is they decided to roll their own extremely questionable service and insecurely store sensitive images in a public bucket Multiple SAAS vendors provide ID verification for ~$2/each. They should have eaten that fee when it was small and then found a way pass it onto the users later

dabockster 1y ago
> Whats wrong with verifying the ID? - IDs usually contain enough information to totally steal a person's identity (beyond just their name and mailing address). - IDs usually have secret security mechanisms beyond what's publicly known for a government to verify if an ID is real or not. - 3rd party business systems can only verify the publicly known security stuff. And because that security stuff is public, it can get faked easily. - IDs are super easy to fake. - The only entity that can totally verify an ID is a government, because you'd have to verify the secret security mechanisms as well. And there's a million reasons why you wouldn't necessarily want a government to verify an ID for a private business transaction.

jandrese 1y ago

> A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. The fee filters out 99% of the trolls out there Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith.

kryogen1c 1y ago
> Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith. So the same as it was before you could buy them?
dabockster 1y ago
Everything is still up to whoever is running the platform. I'm just saying that, from an web admin perspective, that $2/month works. And if it doesn't, you have their billing info to track trolls down irl if necessary.

raydev 1y ago

> who wants to pay to troll You've never visited X (formerly known as Twitter)?