Triple J’s news item, also on the ABC suggests Tinder is yet to deliver on any promises.
Tinder apparently has also spoken with the Federal Communications Minister - Paul Fletcher. As the full text and content of such meetings is usually not made public it would be easy to remain sceptical about Tinder’s commitments.
Tinder is yet to address key concerns or contact those who volunteered their experiences to the Tripple-J Hack and Four Corners investigation.
As for policing: However, NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Stuart Smith earlier told the triple j Hack and Four Corners investigation there have been difficulties with that process.
“There’s a contact email and they’re supposed to get back to us, there’s always difficulties with that process,” he said.
If Australia as a nation really does have the ability to control foreign owned digital platforms - why should government sit back and leave it to customers to look to the potential for a class action. Despite what digital platforms would like us to think they really are just another business that needs to be accountable and to pay fair taxes on Australian turnover.
I’m inclined to think the alternative of a great firewall of Australia and Huawei technology might be a safer future than the free for all, US inspired uncontrolled digital transformation.
Those whose ideology focuses on a small government and individual accountability are sure that is the right thing to do.
How many users of any platform who suffer on-line abuse and trolling are clever enough to ‘unplug’? No, they stay, endure, and sometimes complain about how bad it is. It is their choice of perceived benefits vs consequences.
Therein lies a problem, people’s behaviour is often contradictory to what they often vote for.
Unless one aspires to live Beyond the Thunderdome, too right. And not just for uncontrolled digital transformations.
That may be true but nothing that I could see in that article supports that statement.
The article talks about changes to the “safety policy”, whatever that is or means. As far as I could see, there was no substantive change to the “safety policy” - other than basically yes you should get to Law Enforcement, ASAP. Which is pretty much always good advice.
As the article says, there was no indication of whether there would be any change to the controversial “unmatch function” but on the other hand Tinder indicates that “unmatch” is completely ineffective as far as Tinder itself and/or Law Enforcement go.
In other words - no surprise - no matter what you do, all your “private” conversations are stored by Tinder forever. I reckon that should be of greater concern to the people who are not involved in alleged sexual assaults, just on the basis of weight of numbers.
At the end of day, it is a bit soft to blame Tinder when a sexual assault is alleged. Surely, the primary blame rests with the alleged perpetrator?
Law Enforcement of course claim that they don’t receive sufficiently timely and/or reliable and/or helpful responses from Tinder. Whether you trust that that is an accurate claim is up to you. No evidence is given.
A contact email probably isn’t adequate for Law Enforcement, given the complete lack of integrity that normal email has. You wouldn’t want just anyone emailing Tinder and asking for real contact information etc. about a customer.
It is very doubtful that Tinder itself should be involved in investigating alleged sexual assaults - even though someone quoted in the article suggests that. Tinder have neither the expertise, nor the tools, nor the access, nor the legal authority to investigate, nor the legal authority to make a finding.
Logically, all they need to do is accurately identify the account in question, and then the communication in question, and then the IP address used for that communication. Law Enforcement can take it from there.
Law Enforcement is not alleging that Tinder doesn’t cooperate, only that the process doesn’t work that well.
To be fair, this is the one place that you should be allowed to be absolutely discriminatory.
PS I am a little confused as to how “date” and “love” are relevant here. Perhaps Channel 9 is just being coy / polite.
I really don’t see how it is “outrageous” to exclude single mothers. If we really were talking about dating here then it would just be wasting everyone’s time not to mention that if that is the reality. Likewise, it would not be fair on the child or children.
Single mothers come as a package and if that isn’t what “Stephen” would be able to commit to then it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to make that clear up front.
