7 ms·

Also, I think the perceived value of the application finally fell to the deserved zero. Who will "anonymously" share secrets through an application which doesn'

Also, I think the perceived value of the application finally fell to the deserved zero. Who will "anonymously" share secrets through an application which doesn't uses Tor, asks for phone numbers and requires a Facebook login? That's just a stupid tool for stupid kids do stupid things. They also got a lot of problems in Brazil due to schoolchildren using it for harassment -- Google and Apple received court orders to remove the application from their stores.

saryant 12y ago
Most of the stuff I saw on the app hardly qualified as "secret" anyways. Maybe potentially embarrassing ("I really don't want to fly to see my family this Christmas") but other than that kerfuffle about the Google acquisition, few secrets. Or maybe I just only had lame people on my feed. Either way I deleted the app a week after I installed it.
- minikomi 12y ago
  It failed to gain much traction here in Japan, apart from Brazilians posting pictures of butts and (visiting? expat?) gay guys endlessly posting about saunas in Shinjuku...
- prostoalex 12y ago
  Flurry and MessageMe acquisitions were first revealed on Secret. Maybe in an attempt to see what happens when SEC subpoenas somebody.
danieltillett 12y ago
No it was not stupid, it was far worse than this. It was a nasty tool that allowed nasty people to do nasty things.
- mkal_tsr 12y ago
  Should we ban TOR then? What about VPNs? Anonymity all together? What's the line?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - slapresta 12y ago
    No one here said anything about banning.
    - mkal_tsr 12y ago
      >They also got a lot of problems in Brazil due to schoolchildren using it for harassment -- Google and Apple received court orders to remove the application from their stores. How is a court order not considered banning?
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        How did you manage to confuse a Brazilian court order with a comment on HN?
        mkal_tsr 12y ago
        The original OP I replied to asserted it was a negative-only application. But it is just a tool and blaming the code for the actions of its users erases any good that it may also do. And just as TOR, proxies, and VPNs can be abused, they also provide an important function for good. If an application should be banned because it could be abused, then what is the limit to what is good and what is bad, and who decides that? When laws are in place to prevent jailbreaking or using alternative app stores, and those app stores are ordered to remove that application (by court order), for the majority of individuals it is banned (from a strictly law-abiding perspective). danieltillett was positing that it was good that Google and Apple had it ordered for removal because it was abused. But if we assert that it is acceptable to ban anything that can be abused, how does one (or everyone) decide that one tool should be banned but not another? That is what I was asking, and then I was told that no one mentioned banning yet DT and OP were both discussing the ban of an application. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get all stress-testing tools removed from the internet because someone could possibly use them to DDoS a site /s

saryant 12y ago

Most of the stuff I saw on the app hardly qualified as "secret" anyways. Maybe potentially embarrassing ("I really don't want to fly to see my family this Christmas") but other than that kerfuffle about the Google acquisition, few secrets. Or maybe I just only had lame people on my feed. Either way I deleted the app a week after I installed it.

minikomi 12y ago
It failed to gain much traction here in Japan, apart from Brazilians posting pictures of butts and (visiting? expat?) gay guys endlessly posting about saunas in Shinjuku...
prostoalex 12y ago
Flurry and MessageMe acquisitions were first revealed on Secret. Maybe in an attempt to see what happens when SEC subpoenas somebody.

danieltillett 12y ago

No it was not stupid, it was far worse than this. It was a nasty tool that allowed nasty people to do nasty things.

mkal_tsr 12y ago
Should we ban TOR then? What about VPNs? Anonymity all together? What's the line?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- slapresta 12y ago
  No one here said anything about banning.
  - mkal_tsr 12y ago
    >They also got a lot of problems in Brazil due to schoolchildren using it for harassment -- Google and Apple received court orders to remove the application from their stores. How is a court order not considered banning?
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      How did you manage to confuse a Brazilian court order with a comment on HN?
      - mkal_tsr 12y ago
        The original OP I replied to asserted it was a negative-only application. But it is just a tool and blaming the code for the actions of its users erases any good that it may also do. And just as TOR, proxies, and VPNs can be abused, they also provide an important function for good. If an application should be banned because it could be abused, then what is the limit to what is good and what is bad, and who decides that? When laws are in place to prevent jailbreaking or using alternative app stores, and those app stores are ordered to remove that application (by court order), for the majority of individuals it is banned (from a strictly law-abiding perspective). danieltillett was positing that it was good that Google and Apple had it ordered for removal because it was abused. But if we assert that it is acceptable to ban anything that can be abused, how does one (or everyone) decide that one tool should be banned but not another? That is what I was asking, and then I was told that no one mentioned banning yet DT and OP were both discussing the ban of an application. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get all stress-testing tools removed from the internet because someone could possibly use them to DDoS a site /s