Add that to 3rd party apps that can find your exact location (https://www.engadget.com/2018-09-15-grindr-location-info.htm...) and Grindr becomes a dangerous weapon against LGBT people.
They also don't care when their app facilitates harassment and puts innocent people at risk[2], and they're willing to go to the Supreme Court[3] in order to defend their right to do absolutely nothing about it.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/05/grindr-promises-privacy-still-...
[2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...
[3] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...
The FBI made fake anonymous phones. No reason an anti-LGBT organization or government couldn't make a Gay Dating app.
Remember that Grindr is majority owned by Beijing Kunlun Tech, a Chinese company. And China isn't the most Gay-friendly nation now is it...
> By the time Matthew arrived at my office, exhausted and traumatized, he had already gotten an order of protection and reported the matter to the police 10 times. Yet, the flow of strangers—over a thousand at that point—wasn’t slowing. The unwitting strangers would wait for him in the stairwells at home, other times following him into the bathroom at work. “What about Grindr?” I asked. “They’re in the exclusive position to help.” Matthew said he had reported the matter to them 50 times.
If I ran a dating site, I'd jump all over this. Sure it's the right thing to do, but even from a business perspective having your platform appear to be a safe place would be important for gaining new members. If this account is remotely accurate I can't think of an explanation for this other than colossal incompetence or evil.
Many apps try to block it, but that's whack-a-mole.
Other dating sites I have used allow this technology so you can find dates for holidays, or at home while you're away. I assume that's the reason, it could just be so that people in relationships can cast their net further afield, but that's also pure speculation.
Exposed and other tools make it difficult for apps to lock down any aspect of trust on a phone, returning control to the owner of the device. Sometimes this isn't the most desirable thing, but it's never the wrong thing.
Why would they? Doing that would make their data less valuable. Just because grindr is the "gay hookup app" doesn't necessarily mean that the people who operate it care about gay people's (or anyone's) privacy. According to this [0], grindr ranks #4 of all mobile apps when it comes to collecting personal information. It's a free app that requires your location to use it, which means that it's a personal info collection app first, and a dating app second.
[0]: https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/data-grabbing-apps/...
they do, if you pay them money for it. it's a "premium feature."
Smart phones are unpredictable in their danger. You would not expect Grindr to sell you out to an oppressive regime, for example. Nor would you expect your private dating profile to get you fired. These are unpredictable outcomes well outside the range of what most users would expect.
0 - Truly accidental discharges where the firearm goes off without a trigger press are rare and make the news. Most negligent discharges are the result of people mishandling the firearm, rather than the firearm doing something unexpected.
I think the mistake is thinking those profiles are private. How could you ever meet someone without some ability for people to see your profile? I've never tried any dating sites, so may be overlooking something obvious to others.
Never type anything you wouldn't want to be taken out of context and read out in court, either a law court, or the court of public opinion.
1) That’s not what people expect.
2) There is an argument that it shouldn’t be this way.
https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/07/21/news/voghera_as...
It seems like a moot distinction to me. Take Glock for example; they make a big deal about their guns having "three automatic independently-operating mechanical safeties." But the fact of the matter is a glock has no traditional fire/safe toggle safety. ALL the safety of a glock is based on the premise that the trigger will not be unintentionally pulled when a round is in the chamber. The obvious consequence of this is people getting shot by completely accidental trigger pulls. Whether you drop the gun and it goes off or the trigger snags on your clothing and the gun goes off, a gunshot accident is still a gunshot accident, and both are consequences of the gun's design.
That being said the first generation was prone to slam fires, where chambering a round sets the firearm off. Now that is an unpredictable tool.
Also, historically snagging the trigger on clothing has always been a source of negligent discharges, even before Gaston Glock was around. The allied army in WW2 officially required that most soldiers issued a handgun carry it with an empty chamber due to the prevalence of injuries, and the M1911 has a grip and manual safety.
> Glocks are still not unpredictable by my metric. [...] it’s not going to go bang without a trigger press. It’s a very predictable firearm in that way.
I agree with this completely. Glocks are predictable. Where we part ways is that I don't believe predictability is the metric that should be optimized for. People not getting shot is the important metric; predictability is only important insofar as it relates to that. But as demonstrated by glocks, predictability is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to people not accidentally shooting themselves.
As for soldiers in WWII, they also had piss-poor to non-existent trigger discipline. A 1911 is a safer gun than a glock due to the manual safety, but still won't protect you from handling it in unsafe ways. Glocks have that same problem, but worse because they lack manual safeties which function as one last line of defense when you fuck up everything else.
Here in the US guns need to pass a drop test before being legally available for sale. I’m sure Europe has similar restrictions.
If you want to go to gay bars and pick up guys on Grindr, leave the priesthood. If you want to be celibate and follow church teachings, quit going to gay bars. But, there’s nothing ‘courageous’ about trying to have your cake and eat it too.
But, they have certain rules they are to follow if they wish to be a priest. If you swear to follow the rules, you should do so. If not, quit. It had nothing to do with Catholicism. If you’re a Rabbi leading a synagogue you shouldn’t sneak off on the Sabbath and gorge on pork sandwiches. Nobody would call such a Rabbi ‘courageous.’ They’d call him a hypocrite.
Hell, it doesn’t even have to do with religion. If your job prohibits you from smoking marijuana, and you swear you won’t, nobody should call you ‘courageous’ if you’re busted smoking weed.
My comment was about using the term ‘courageous.’
The use of that term is just knee-jerk virtue signaling merely because it involved a gay guy.
Priests are to be celibate. If you don’t like the rules, don’t be a priest.
If it was a priest who got caught having sex with women he met on tinder and going to strip clubs, nobody would call him ‘courageous.’ They’d call him a bad priest... there’s nothing admirable about it.
But replace ‘tinder’ with ‘Grindr’ and ‘strip club’ with ‘gay bar’ and the dipshit priest is suddenly ‘courageous’?
Are adulterers ‘courageous’ for breaking their vows and cheating on their spouse?
[1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/d...