>>102558
The Tea app was never about treating women with respect. It was about men using violence and abuse against women. Someone set up a website, purely because they know that’s exactly the sort of thing that the women on it would hate, but I am not aware of any Tea user being subjected to any violence whatsoever as a result of the hack.

>>102551

I'm willing to believe by the point they joined tea the cicular reasoning and the standards set high enough that, they wouldn't be capible of changing their position.

Men aren't capible of being nice only pretending to be nice, ect...

So I don't think it actually changed anything.

>>102560
You, I don't really understand what you're saying. Not every sentence needs a new paragraph.

>>102559
You, I think you've misunderstood what I've said.

Dang, it surely is most difficult being so right all the time. However, I must away to do exactly that in the three dimensional meatspace so I can't carry on here any longer. Try not to light any fires while I'm out!

>>102542
Yes we are.
Or, at least, we are watching it become incredibly difficult to do so without a reminder that we are being watched.

But people will always set up other sites in other places; the web starting was a pandora's box that can't be shut again, and that's a good thing.

Still, this needs to be stopped - phone your MPto complain, and send him a letter. ell him about stuff you've seen happen, all the stupid blocks. Phone your ISP and complain. Send emails to the contact pages for twitter, discord, or whatever sites you use. Or their contact form pages.

Phone your local ofcom office to complain.
Phone Mastercard(though that's a about the nudey games, a slightly different but related matter).

And organise other people to do it with you.

On that other website, tomorrow, efveryone's going to start phoning Mastercard to complain. Spread the word, and tell people to phone ofcom to complain as well. Phone multiple times. Be an annoying shit like they are to us.

Fight.

>>102543
Not to mention that the OSA allows for these companies to choose their own 'independent' age verification service, because if there's one thing you can do for your kids' safety, it's give their ID scans over to this man when they talk about his antisemitism.

Or his mate Donald who runs Truth Social and is a convicted sex offender. And likes to sue everyone who points that out.

If being against this law makes one a carpet-bagger, being for it makes Peter Kyle a Nazi, I suppose!

Peter, if you're reading this, if Jimmy was alive today he wouldn't be on social media - he'd be running it.

>>102558

Stop this. With this situation, it's a fairly straightforward case of those in glass houses, and the fallacy of treating a group as a monolith.

You surely don't think all women are band just because a group of them used an app that was purportedly for "safeguarding women", for purposes which were definitely not about that. By the same token it's not instantly all men proving how they can't be trusted or whatever it is, when they laugh at those people getting some karma back. There are innocents caught in the crossfire on both sides. The men who had nasty women gossiping about them for no reason, and the women who had their details leaked and made fun of for no reason.

For my part I only see defending the women involved as an example of how women never have ugly behaviours challenged. Any time they do, somebody is there willing to bend over for them, because women are wonderful innocent angels. Men do at least get called on it when they behave poorly to women.

Just so you lads are aware: This app was never released in the UK market. The tea that is being spilled is the greatest crime here.

>>102564

>If being against this law makes one a carpet-bagger, being for it makes Peter Kyle a Nazi, I suppose

As an argument for a law, it was as piss poor as they come. There were very sound and articulate objections to the bill from all sorts of sources, but the government chose to ignore them willfully almost 100 percent.

The ends don't always justify the means. If we're serious about government accountability, then you can't just brush off any and all criticism and accuse doubters of being closet paedos. In fact, that should be a red flag, that you have to resort to name calling instead of reasonably countering what, again, was quite often well founded criticism. And it's often this kind of hubris, where you think that nobody in their right mind can possibly be against your bill, which then leads to very poorly conceived laws.

>>102567
I don't know why, but it bothers me that Seppos say "spill the tea" instead of "spill the beans."

>>102567

Arguably it would have done less harm over here. Our chronics are less likely to shoot up a shopping centre if they find out women have been ridiculing them on the internet.

>>102571

Apparently it's unrelated and comes from gay lingo. Never liked it either way mind.

>>102565
First of all, you don't tell me to stop anything, ever. Secondly, I was not saying I personally think that, you dimwitted fucking cave ogre. What I said was that if you were already thinking along those lines, nothing regarding the leak will have disabused of that way of thinking. Indeed, it will have done quite the opposite.

Also, there's a world of difference between "gossip", and "having your entire identity leaked publically because the app you downloaded had more gaping holes than an extra from the film Cruising". You complain about women's behavior towards men, but if I have to read another one of your braindead, self-pitying, posts it's going move me to contributing to the male suicide epidemic. So, please, if you really want to help men, throw your keyboard in a skip.

>>102564
That's the other mad thing about this law, yeah. The idea that handing over personal data is fine even in the event it isn't leaked or hacked is such a joke. It was bad enough when tech oligarchs were pretending to be apolitical by bribing centrists to leave them alone, but now half of them are out in public asking "umm, what if we made the short film 'Slaughterbots' real? Wouldn't that be cool?". And who even vets these companies that checking your passport? Something we previously only entrusted to government employees and bar staff?

The way we make laws in the country does my fucking head in.

>>102561

I'm saying by the time a woman has joined the tea app the misandry has set in hard enough that, that arguments about how the hack would reinforce their position are irrelevant. They were already beyond the point of being willing to change having long established a self fulfilling prophecy, where men are incapable of good.

>>102576
Oh, no, not the scourge of "misandry". How about you fucking "blow me", you total gimp.

I mean, these days you can't even walk down the street without a lass shouting "ballbag!" or "moid!" at you. It's a wonder any lads go outside anymore.

>>102577
Is your brain broken? You surely understand there might be a distinction to be made between an average woman and a woman who joins a specific group built around the functional purpose of distrusting men? And what that says about their psyche.

>>102575
>First of all, you don't tell me to stop anything, ever.
By all means, let us continue this discussion about how men are perfectly fine and it's women being unreasonable or something.

>>102577
>>102575
>>102579

I'm not sure what anyone gets out of this lazy trolling, but clearly one or more people get their jollies out of winding people up in any conversation about men and women. That's even with the pains taken to highlight that it's only some men and some women, in this context. I'd like to think that .gs users can generally see through shite arguments and appeals to emotion like this.

>Also, there's a world of difference between "gossip", and "having your entire identity leaked publically because the app you downloaded had more gaping holes than an extra from the film Cruising".

The "gossip" literally involved sharing that same data (photographs, name, geographic location) among strangers with the very intention of people knowing their identities. I can't see anyone in this thread that argued the leak was a good thing, only that there is an irony to it.

>if I have to read another one of your braindead, self-pitying, posts it's going move me to contributing to the male suicide epidemic.

This is a revealingly crass and stupid thing to say. People like >>102577 think that misandry either doesn't exist or could only be the mirror image of stereotypically sexist behaviours toward women, like jeering at people or making demeaning sex-based remarks. Putting aside the fact that this does happen towards men and it's often not taken seriously, we should recognise that sexism can take different forms. Minimising the damage done by a gossip network primarily aimed at doxxing men and making light of male suicide in an unrelated conversation would be fairly good examples.

>>102576
I bet loads of my female friends would join this app, just to check it out for voyeuristic pleasure. Exactly the same as how I looked at the "rate Tea users based on their photos" website, but even more so, because I spent about two minutes there but Tea was the hot new fun club where all the girls are getting together. How could any woman resist? The critical mass beyond which it's no longer entirely deranged man-hating neurotic feminazis is very low indeed, and that point was easily passed by the time they got hacked.

>>102582

You obviously raise a valid point. But on a moralistic level I hate the implication that if enough people do an immoral act it becomes justifiable. If the use of tea it self when used as intended isn't inherently misandristic it certainly has the air of the dog whistle about it. I'm sure people would flock to gawk the same way they did to the Jeremy Kyle show. I consider those people complicit in a murder, I don't excuse joining tea by the same token.

The purpose of tea is to commit character assassination whilst avoiding detection. I think the logical conclusion to the 'move fast and break things' philosophy in this paticular instance is that someone commits deformation is sued and tea is quite rightfully sued as codefendant.

The reason the likes of youtube aren't sued for copyright infringement when someone uploads a whole movie is purely convention based on their willingness to be entirely cooperative with complainants. If someone wanted to. They could sue youtube too.

You cannot say the same for a network designed to conceal from the party in question the public dissemination of negative comments about their character. Their intent to facilitate the act is much clearer. The first time they upset someone who can afford a lawyer the wheels will fall off their wagon like it did with gawker

>>102587
If you don't want women branding you as being a bit rapey, maybe consider being a bit less rapey.

>>102591
But there comes a point where so many men get branded as rapey (accurately, in plenty of cases) that women, being stupid with their inferior female brains full of nothing but shoes and haircuts, just decide to tar us all with the same brush. At that point, it becomes impossible to not be thought of as rapey, simply by virtue of being male. And that was the implicit premise of Tea: we already know he's evil because he's a man, now let's find evidence to prove it.

What would you suggest a random non-rapist male should do, in order to gain a reputation for not being a rapist? How can any of us prove this negative? If your answer presumes that all women are entirely rational actors (actresses?), then it won't be a viable answer; I can tell you that already.

I'm trying to work out if my Spotify is going to need an age verification at some point considering I only pay with yearly gift card. I was going to look at an explicit video to try and trigger this but I don't know what I can use that is also on the platform.

>>102591
I know this is trolling but I do feel the need to point out that some people just look rapey to some people. My old housemate was Asian and we lived down an alleyway where he'd circle around the neighbourhood if there was a white girl walking down our alley alone because that was an image thing his community has to seriously think about.

>>102580

>I'd like to think that .gs users can generally see through shite arguments and appeals to emotion like this.

We can, but .gs has both sides of the coin. As much as I have continued coming here over the years because there can often be some very high quality posts containing illuminating discussion of niche topics you'd never have thought about otherwise, it also has plenty of that type of lad who's clearly a total gobshite who just likes to spew passive aggressive bollocks in order to feel superior to people. So far as I can tell that's usually the main motivation behind the worst posts here, they always come from that position of righteous morality while they are, in fact, being a complete arsehole.

>>102611
The thing is, mate, I don't start off being "revealingly crass" do you pair say "gosh" as well?. I start off making reasonable and considered arguments in an earnest attempt to convince others, before realising that some of you are, and I'm sorry if this offends you, social media users. You possibly even use rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk and other imageboards besides this one. Once the penny drops and I realise you're just repeating things you saw on Twitter, it's hard to take your whinging and moaning about people being "doxxed" seriously, when that's not what talking about people in private channels is. None of you ever back up your claims with a shred of evidence, but instead you expect me to take everything you say at face value. Well, I won't, and I definitely won't start trying to prove those claims on your behalf just so I can be a better .gs poster. I'm not looking to become the unofficial head of disinformation around here.

It also doesn't help that whenever I decide to get a bit blue someone insists on getting all Mary Whitehouse about it.

>>102612

Examine yourself, lad. You are just making a shitload of assumptions and then spewing shit based on it. It's childish to start calling somebody names just because they don't immediately agree with you, much less because you have already imagined in your head exactly what kind of person they are based on one paragraph of an anonymous post.

What's ironic is that the kind of instant dismissive judgement and descent to insults is exactly the kind of low bar of tone that makes me avoid places like Twitter. If you dislike Twitter and its users so much why are you bringing the quality of Twitter here, by acting like one of them.

>>102613
I don't imagine anything. When folk on here start defending the hacking and harrassing of thousands of people because they think it's "ironic", then I'm not making assumptions, I'm being told what kind of person they are.

I'm never instantly dismissive, but I am quite tired of hearing about the "ugly behaviors" women are getting up to, like discussing abortions on a private messaging service, that are apparently in need of correcting. Why shouldn't I call people like this names? These people are surveilence freaks, they admit as much: "a gossip network primarily aimed at doxxing men", is an invention to justify the genuine invasion of privacy we see with the hack itself. The people doing this stuff are not exactly carrying on the noble traditions of Aaron Swartz, are they? They're just pricks.

>>102615

You are, at the very least, taking a massively biased overly charitable view of one side, and overly uncharitable view of the other. This is the kind of thing that makes it very hard to persuade anyone, no matter how passive aggressive you get towards them, because it's the very first thing someone sniffs out about your post and then it's hard not to mentally dismiss the entirety of it.

For instance, you're downplaying this gossip aspect like it's just harmless information sharing or like 100% of it was fully evidenced and factual reporting, and absolutely none of it was made up or catty or just plain vengeful. But frankly, if there's one thing I have learned in my life, it's that people who are drawn to gossip (and this is regardless of gender here), it's that their motivations are overwhelmingly malicious. Gossip is fundamentally an ugly behaviour, it is a socially negative act, I have seen too many times how it is used as a form of passive bullying to victimise people who don't actually deserve it.

You can hide behind this ironic detachment that they're all just pricks and you don't care but you've clearly got some kind of cutting implement to sharpen using friction haven't you. Are you Gemma from HR? Are you actually a woman trying to false flag post in the boys only club? Is that why you get so hysterical whenever your cuntish behaviour is called out, because you're just not used to it?

Okay yes I'm purposely antagonising you in that last part, and it pisses you off doesn't it. That's what I'm talking about.

>>102616

No point trying to talk sense into her m8, she's probably on the blob.

>>102617
Talk about longstanding issues, that's one that lasts about 40 years.

Ofcom's going after 4chan. I suspect nothing funny will come of it, but it might.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content
https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914
Can't decide whether or not Byrne & Storm, Attorneys-at-law is a great name or just BS.

On reflection, I think Storm & Byrne would be ideal as it makes more logistical sense (you wouldn't storm a place after you burn it) and also avoids being BS, but I have to assume there's a reason they're in the order they are, probably to do with seniority of partner or whatever traditional nonsense American prostitues use.

>>102706
I mean it's not like Ofcom actually expects 4chan to pay or make any changes. It's just the procedure to stick an ISP block on the website so that children don't get radicalised by cartoon frogs. Good thing I bought a 3 year pass this year.

I've sort of joked about it for years, that the government will one day use "somebody think of the children!" as the pretext to basically ban anything they like fully 1984 style, but I was never actually serious about the thought that it might actually happen. It feels really weird and just deeply sickening that we actually do live in the reality where they are actually doing it, though.

You'd only have to be half joking to suggest that as many people have been radicalised by Mumsnet as 4chan. So come on, fair's fair. What if we sockpuppet a load of accounts to post nasty stuff on mumsnet so we can get it taken down?

>>102711
>You'd only have to be half joking to suggest that as many people have been radicalised by Mumsnet as 4chan

There's a reason Glinner went there when he got booted off Twitter.

>>102707
>I have to assume there's a reason they're in the order they are
Most duos put their names in alphabetical order. Mitchell and Webb, for example, or Armstrong & Miller, Flanders & Swann, Ashford and Simpson, Lennon and McCartney, etc. You shut the fuck up about Laurel & Hardy.

>>102718

Yes, but this isn't a comedy duo, it's a law firm. The internet gives no conclusive answer but order of seniority is one that it suggests more often than most.

>>102706
Never mind Byrne & Storm, I'm just impressed that they've got Ronnie Coleman as their lawyer.

Do you reckon people still call Moot Moot? Like I still have a couple of old timer acquaintances who call me my internet username from 20 years ago, and school friends who just call me my surname instead of my first name.

I recall reading that he works for Google or something like that now, and being the guy who invented 4Chan must have landed him a decent position in the company, but I can't imagine him escaping moot#faggot.

>>102722
He left Google in 2021, according to this link:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/22/4chan-founder-chris-poole-moot-has-left-google.html

I think this is the most recent photo anyone has of him, and it's several years old. There will definitely be people asking him, "Are you moot?" when they meet him, but he has been a borderline recluse for several years now as far as I can tell.

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-08-16/reform-will-fail-women-if-they-scrap-online-safety-act-angela-rayner-says

>Jim'll Fix It risks “failing a generation of young women” if the party scraps the Online Safety Act, Angela Rayner has said.

>The Deputy Prime Minister demanded Jimmy Savile explain how his party would keep young women safe when they use the internet if it repeals the legislation as promised if it wins the next general election.


Serious question - have we heard anything other than overblown dogma from Labour in defending their shite new law?

>>102726

Clever word filters, eh.

>>102726
How did young women survive in the pre-online safety act days? We just don't know.

>>102726
>>102728
Despite what Raynor says "intimate image abuse" was already illegal, and had been for several years. I was going to go into more detail about why I hate the OSA, but you can just read this if you like: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/08/americans-be-warned-lessons-rudgwicksteamshow.co.uks-chaotic-uk-age-verification-rollout

Why don't porn distributors run thier own crypto currency? Buy in proves age, coin value yadda yadda. Seems like a good move to me, with correct oversights.

>>102730

Could give new meaning to the term "rug pull".

>>102730
>Why don't porn distributors run thier own crypto currency?
Because they're not grifters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw

>>102733

Historically the Germans have been massively against linking real world identity to online presence hopefully they will keep the doors open for us.

If this technology is allowed to normalise there will be no putting the genie back in the bottle, once infrastructure becomes dependent on it.

Apparently the volume of searches for VPNs has been peaking at 1am every night since the Online Safety Act kicked in. I would have thought that was too late for most people so I guess a lot of us need help getting off (to sleep).

>>102742
Troubled to think this has come down the grapevine from OFCOM itself. What're they thinking about this data?