Most likely, you're being sarcastic, but just to put this out there, that would be like me publishing an app where you just write text into a box and click submit and I promise in the app store info and privacy policy that submitting it just causes it to get erased, but the information is actually being sent to all your worst enemies.
The demographics of the app and its owner tick all the right boxes for a company like Apple, but even then, less serious violations would earn an app an insta-ban. My guess is the owner has friends in high places who are pulling strings in his favor.
Related: Tea app leak worsens with second database exposing user chats (bleepingcomputer.com) | 120 points by akyuu 1 day ago | 145 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44716529
It's like when B737 Max crashed and Boeing blamed a "software glitch". It's about dressing the failure up as something that could randomly happen to anyone.
It is amazing how quickly anything relatively modern gets designated “legacy” when the business needs to blame it for their mistakes and/or incompetence.
I wonder if they will approve my new apps: “Ezzy” and “Cray” where people can rate dates for how easy it was to get them into bed and how crazy they were during and/or after.
I'm somewhat opposed to the idea of having a walled garden App Store as Apple does, which is why I don't use Apple.
But Apple insists they do have a walled garden, and people buy Apple with that expectation, so I certainly hope and expect that Apple doesn't approve apps like these. Any app that does doxxing as a service should not be on Apple's app store IMO.
I don't know, but I don't want Apple exercising even more draconian control over what apps I have on my Apple devices.
If I want to use an app with a horrendous security track record, I should be able to. See also: the plethora of other popular apps with horrendous security track records.
I see many breaches and people still use the products. Even tech stuff: people knowingly using tech/dev products of people who are either sloppy, plain incompetent or both. I don't get it but here we are.
In the 80s and 90s I was positive that customers would revolt over the constant security issues and generally poor quality of Microsoft software. I don’t need to tell you that it did not happen.
hard to revolt against a monopoly. the only alternative is expensive Apple gear, or (for most of the 90s-2000s) learning a deep set of skills to use the nascent linux desktop options.
We didn't revolt when tobacco companies screwed generations of people, and this is just an example of the many screwing happened in the past from big companies, I'm not positive on the fact people will revolt for privacy breaches such this one
It's possible, although I have zero proof, that some of the people responsible for removing apps from the App Store, agree with it. The moderation has always been bull crap and recourse is little if any.
Tbh this is possible only in software. No matter what you do - epic incompetence, leak user data, doxx users, basically allow their identities to be stolen etc - zero consequences.
Kinda crazy. In any other industry they would not even allow you in the door without showing some king of understanding what you do.
You can't even sell hotdogs without food license. But in software - wild west.
The general public has come to accept that computers are magic. Sometimes the magic does good things, sometimes it does bad things. If there's a person with a public profile who is seen to be controlling the computers, governments might do something to punish that person, but if they remain invisible, no one dares tamper with the magic.
Or medical devices. Or aviation/spaceflight. Or automotive.
It turns out there's actually quite a bit of precedent for doing actual Software Engineering, versus what most of the software world seem to be doing (presumably rotating a database by 90 degrees, duct taping it to another database, and sticking a front-end on it?)
The same reason that Microsoft products are still in the App Store after so many breaches. Because having a security breach is not part of the App Store equation.
What does this "law" have to do with conservatism? Seems completely irrelevant and to related to the ideology at all. (Aside from being a skewed and straw-manned view of it)
Because Apple's stance on protecting users only covers cases supporting the App Store walled garden or such that make you buy a new phone. If anything, it's good to keep it on the store - so many people are searching for it, seeing and clicking ads.
As a man who's always considered himself a strong feminist, I think that tea's issue are way more profound that just some data breach.
Women were convinced to trust the app as a safe space, but it never was for various reasons. First, as proven by the breach, privacy was not guaranteed.
Second, I do not see how a women-only app made to complain on men can help any men get better in their behavior, instead of balcanizing society even more, creating camps and hatred. This is not safe in itself. It won't further women's condition in their relationship with men. It alienates men even more, gives arguments to the Jordan Peterson-style toxic masculinity influencers, and inevitably fosters toxic behavior in women too.
The app wasn't made for men to get better. It wasn't made for men at all, believe it or not. It was made, very poorly, for women to protect themselves because women face realities men do not.
I don't think that Jordan Peterson is toxic. Although I haven't watched any of his videos for years now, so that might have changed. What makes him toxic in your opinion?
On the other hand I believe what you wrote can be summarized as toxic feminism.
There really seams to be two kind of "feminists": The first claim it's all about equality and the second which is some weird, kind of reverse sexist, ideology. But they are not distributed equally. The latter seams to be what actually defines feminism, is very vocal and is the one that comes up whenever you hear about feminism, while the former seams to only come up when you start to argue against the latter kind.
I also don't get what the former kind is getting from calling themself feminists, when they really only seam to promote common sense.
> The latter seams to be what actually defines feminism, is very vocal and is the one that comes up whenever you hear about feminism, while the former seams to only come up when you start to argue against the latter kind.
This linguistic game is basically the core defining feature of progressivism as practiced: one can hold a term in linguistic ambiguity and choose, post-hoc, whichever one is most convenient for them to assume at the time (which may be a completely different definition from the one they operated under yesterday).
This way you can have your cake and eat it too by advancing radical feminist ideology at the bailey before retreating to the motte of what you call common sense.
Yes, let's use blanket statements to justify our preconceived notions. I'm not sure what the conclusion you're trying to push here -- feminism is about women having rights. Including the right to complain.
But didn't you just do exactly that by calling the parent's thoughts preconceived notions?
Edit: parent changed his/her comment after I posted my criticism. Originally it was much shorter and only wrote that the parent's comments are preconceived notions. No context, no nothing.
Not sure what your point is, it's pretty clear the target is the self labelled feminist and the post is more a defence the idea of Tea as platform rather than suggesting it's okay for Tea be technically incompetent.
The comment has been flagged and killed by other users. Though it makes valid points, it contains inflammatory rhetoric of the kind we just don't want to see at all on HN, as do many other comments on all sides of the debate in these threads. We'd be better off without any of it. Please don't feed it.
It's difficult to treat every subject with the detached and clinical air that Hacker News insists upon when you actually care about something beyond the distraction of intellectual exercise and debate.
On the other hand, arguing about things on the internet is futile, regardless of the house rules.
They didn't even instrument the apps during review for the longest time. I think they recently started using an HTTP proxy to watch the connections they make.
People put way more trust in the review process and app store gate keeping than it deserves.
Because there is no punishment for handling data with so much carelesness. If there was a law which seriously punished them, the app would be long gone. That's what you get when the tech bros dictate how the legislation should work
reply