Why I steer clear of ‘safe' dating apps like Tea
You go through all the usual channels: Google, LinkedIn, Instagram – possibly even ChatGPT – to see what you can find. His digital footprint is clean, but something still seems… a little off.
Maybe it's the way he speaks so vaguely about his childhood, or makes subtle, persistent digs at an ex-girlfriend that even your tireless investigative work hasn't been able to find online.
This is where the Tea dating app comes in. Launched in 2023, the US-based platform allows women to share safety information and 'spill the tea' about men they are considering dating.
So, in theory, you could meet a man, look him up on the app, and discover that he's married, has a criminal record, or is a potential catfish. Marketing itself as 'the largest women's group chat in the US', Tea lets users 'review' single men in the hope of ensuring safe dating for heterosexual women everywhere. It's popular too, with 1.6 million users to date.
Unfortunately, what seemed like a long-awaited, even vital, tool has been attacked.
Last week, Tea announced that it had been hacked in a suspected misogynistic backlash, exposing around 72,000 images, including the photo identification of its users. Tea later updated users that some of their direct messages (DMs) had also been accessed by hackers. It has since turned off its messaging functionality, and says it will be offering 'free identity protection services' to any users it identifies as having been exposed.
I'm not remotely surprised by any of this. Even before the hacking incident, which has sparked discussion around sensitive information being shared online, Tea was seen as controversial and accused of being fundamentally misandrist.
Its intentions were good: founder Sean Cook launched Tea after becoming privy to his mother's online dating experiences. She was catfished and matched with a man who, unbeknownst to her, had criminal records. Tea was designed to rectify this – and in another world, perhaps it could.
But in this one, I fear that platforms like this may end up causing more problems than they solve.
It's important to know if someone you're about to date has a criminal record, isn't who they say they are, is on a sex offender registry, or has a history of abusive behaviour. But beyond those parameters, do single women really need to know about another woman's – largely subjective – red flags? How is writing off any man because of what his exes have said about him at all helpful? To me, it seems myopic, insulting, and deeply unfair.
Many of us behave badly in relationships. It's human nature; we mess up, and that's true of both men and women. I'm sure my exes could rack up a list of terrible things I've said and done, which, taken out of context, could put off any future suitor. But people change. We learn and grow into ourselves, often becoming different versions of who we are in different relationships.
Apps like Tea don't allow for that nuance. It's a binary system where bad reviews leave a permanent stain and add to the pessimism characterising the dating landscape, particularly for straight women. Consider the rising popularity of terms like ' heterofatalism ' – used to describe the increasing despair among women who feel there are no 'good men' left.
Equally troubling is that app's showcasing of green flags. Just because one man was a great boyfriend to one woman does not guarantee good behaviour with every other female partner. Isn't thinking that it does potentially as risky as going out with someone whose reviews are littered with red flags?
In an ideal world, we would all of us – men and women – go on dates with people who've been vetted. There would be no risk of being ghosted, stood up, or manipulated. Sure, it would be lovely. But we don't live in an ideal world, as Tea has neatly reminded us.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geeky Gadgets
44 minutes ago
- Geeky Gadgets
iPadOS 26 Changes Everything: Which iPad Should You Buy Now
The release of iPadOS 26 represents a significant evolution for Apple's iPad lineup, introducing features that bridge the gap between tablets and desktops. By aligning software capabilities across all models, this update shifts the focus to hardware differences, allowing users to choose the right iPad based on their specific needs. Whether you're a student, a creative professional, or someone who values portability, understanding these updates is crucial for making an informed decision. The video below from GregsGadgets gives us more details about the impact of iPadOS 26 on the iPad. Watch this video on YouTube. Key Features of iPadOS 26 iPadOS 26 brings a host of enhancements designed to maximize productivity and versatility, making the iPad a more powerful tool for a wide range of users. Notable updates include: Advanced Multitasking: A revamped multitasking system introduces window resizing, app tiling, and macOS-style traffic light controls, allowing seamless management of multiple applications. A revamped multitasking system introduces window resizing, app tiling, and macOS-style traffic light controls, allowing seamless management of multiple applications. Background Task Management: Resource-intensive tasks like rendering and exporting now run uninterrupted in the background, improving workflow efficiency. Resource-intensive tasks like rendering and exporting now run uninterrupted in the background, improving workflow efficiency. Enhanced Files App: New file organization tools, a more functional dock, and external audio controls simplify multitasking and file management. New file organization tools, a more functional dock, and external audio controls simplify multitasking and file management. Desktop-Like Features: Additions such as a menu bar and macOS-inspired apps like Preview and Finder bring a familiar desktop experience to the iPad. These updates elevate the functionality of even the entry-level iPad while allowing premium models to fully use their advanced hardware capabilities. Base iPad: Affordable and Capable The base iPad, priced between $300 and $350, offers excellent value for everyday users. With iPadOS 26, it now supports multitasking and desktop-inspired features, previously reserved for higher-end models. Powered by the A16 chip, it handles tasks like web browsing, video streaming, and light productivity with ease. However, there are some limitations. The base iPad features a non-laminated display, supports only mirrored external displays, and lacks advanced features like Apple Pencil Pro compatibility. Despite these trade-offs, it remains an ideal choice for students and casual users seeking an affordable yet capable device. iPad Air: The Perfect Balance At $600, the iPad Air strikes a balance between affordability and premium features. Its laminated, anti-reflective display offers superior image quality, while the M3 chip ensures smooth performance for demanding tasks such as video editing, graphic design, and gaming. The iPad Air supports advanced Apple Pencil Pro features, including magnetic charging and pressure sensitivity, making it a strong option for creative professionals. Additionally, it includes a faster USB-C port (10Gbps) and full external display support, allowing users to expand their workspace. For those seeking a versatile device with enhanced performance, the iPad Air is a compelling choice. iPad Pro: Unmatched Power and Precision Starting at $1,000, the iPad Pro is designed for users who demand the highest level of performance and features. Its OLED display delivers exceptional brightness, contrast, and HDR support, while the 120Hz ProMotion refresh rate ensures fluid visuals and low latency for Apple Pencil users. The M4 chip provides a significant performance boost over the M3, excelling in resource-intensive tasks such as 3D rendering, high-resolution video editing, and advanced gaming. Additional features include Face ID for secure authentication, a Thunderbolt USB-C port for ultra-fast data transfer, and a four-speaker audio system for immersive sound. Paired with the Magic Keyboard, which includes a haptic trackpad, the iPad Pro transforms into a true laptop replacement, ideal for professionals and power users. iPad Mini: Compact and Powerful For users who prioritize portability, the iPad Mini offers a unique solution. Priced at $500, it features an 8.3-inch compact design and the powerful A17 Pro chip, making it ideal for gaming, multitasking, and on-the-go use. While the iPad Mini supports Apple Pencil Pro, it lacks keyboard accessories, focusing instead on being a lightweight, tablet-first device. This makes it an excellent choice for users who value simplicity and convenience without sacrificing performance. Choosing the Right iPad for Your Needs With iPadOS 26 leveling the software playing field, selecting the right iPad now depends on your hardware preferences and budget. Here's a breakdown to help guide your decision: Base iPad: Best suited for casual users and students who need an affordable device with solid performance. Best suited for casual users and students who need an affordable device with solid performance. iPad Air: Ideal for professionals and creatives seeking a balance of power, display quality, and advanced features. Ideal for professionals and creatives seeking a balance of power, display quality, and advanced features. iPad Pro: Perfect for those requiring top-tier performance, premium features, and a laptop-like experience. Perfect for those requiring top-tier performance, premium features, and a laptop-like experience. iPad Mini: Great for users who prioritize portability and compact design without compromising on power. Apple's updated iPad lineup, combined with the enhancements of iPadOS 26, ensures there's a device tailored to every lifestyle. Whether you need a budget-friendly option, a versatile mid-range device, or a high-performance powerhouse, the iPad family offers something for everyone. Dive deeper into iPadOS 26 features with other articles and guides we have written below. Source & Image Credit: GregsGadgets Filed Under: Apple, Apple iPad, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Boeing and Airbus ground green plane projects
Two years ago, Boeing pulled an airliner out of the Victorville 'boneyard' in California — one of the giant desert storage lots for unwanted aircraft — and flew it 50 miles west to a classified plant for some radical surgery. The 25-year-old MD-90, which in its former life carried passengers for Delta Air Lines and China Southern, was to be the test bed for technology that would cut the greenhouse gases emitted by future aircraft. Its existing wings were to be cut off and replaced with long, thin versions supported by struts projecting from the bottom of a new, deeper fuselage. Boeing and Nasa, which was funding the work, had high hopes for the X-66A, as the plane was renamed. Or they did until four months ago, when the project was abruptly put on ice. Two months earlier, something similar happened to one of Europe's big environmental projects. In February, Airbus said it would 'pause' development of the ZEROe hydrogen plane, an aircraft with no carbon emissions that it had planned to have in service by 2035. The two manufacturers enjoy a near-duopoly in the airliner market, and delays to their flagship green programmes have sounded an alarm on airlines' plans to get to net zero — adding no additional carbon to the atmosphere — by 2050. 'The airline industry does in my view have a serious intent to meet net-zero targets but faces increased challenges in doing so', John Strickland, an independent aviation consultant, said. 'Alternative technologies are being pushed further out, which means an increased emphasis on the use of sustainable aviation fuel, which is still in limited supply.' The delays may also create another obstacle to the planned expansion of Heathrow. The airport said on August 1 that it would 'only deliver expansion in a way that is consistent with net zero 2050'. And some analysts believe the hold-up increases the chances of a challenge to Boeing and Airbus from new entrants more eager to take up the environmental mantle. Aviation is estimated by the International Energy Agency to account for 2.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, with a slightly greater — 4 per cent — contribution to global warming thanks to the creation of vapour trails. In the UK, it has a greater share of direct emissions: 9 per cent this year, according to the Climate Change Committee, the government's independent advisers. That share is forecast to grow to 11 per cent by 2030 and 16 per cent by 2035. That global emissions share is also likely to increase. After a severe decline during the pandemic, flights are now increasing fast. Iata, the airline trade body, has said passenger numbers will grow nearly 6 per cent this year to just under 5 billion and could hit 16 billion by 2050. As other energy-intensive industries find ways to cut their carbon emissions — electricity replacing blast furnaces in steel, new technology for making cement, and electric vehicles for land transport — aviation's share of total CO₂ could, by some estimates, rise to 20 per cent by 2050. Carbon-cutting technology for aviation is proving slow to arrive. Most experts think battery-power will be limited to small commuter aircraft, but there are high hopes for hydrogen. Airbus had invested significantly, including a plan to test a hydrogen fuel-cell engine on a modified A380 superjumbo. But it paused work in February, saying progress on 'key enablers', in particular the production of large amounts of hydrogen from renewable energy, was 'slower than anticipated'. Boeing has been less interested in hydrogen, but said the X-66A could lead to a 10 per cent reduction in emissions. When it cancelled the project it said it would instead concentrate on other designs for thinner, more efficient wings. Neither manufacturer appears in any rush to bring out radical designs. Airbus's plan to replace its bestselling A320 family of aircraft envisages something familiar to passengers today, albeit with engines that can be powered by conventional fuels or 'sustainable' replacements. That plane is unlikely to enter service until 2035 at the earliest, and probably much later. Boeing, which has been beset by a series of crises in the past year, also appears to be in no hurry. At its quarterly results on July 29, chief executive Kelly Ortberg said: 'I don't think the market is ready yet for a new airplane.' • Boeing 737 Max 8: which airlines use the plane and is it safe? Slow progress on alternative technology means airlines' hopes rest on the rapid introduction of sustainable fuels — hydrocarbons not pumped from the ground, but made from plants or re-used oils, or directly synthesised. However, the current supply is tiny — a mere 0.53 per cent of total aviation fuel worldwide last year, according to Air Transport Action Group (Atag), which brings together airlines, airports and aerospace manufacturers. Atag's Waypoint 2050 report concluded that making enough sustainable fuel to hit net zero would require the construction of 5,000 refineries, costing $1.45 trillion over the next 25 years. IBA, the aviation consultancy, has forecast production of sustainable fuels will hit 18 million tonnes a year by 2035 — but that will be 23 million tonnes short of demand. Environmental campaigners are scornful. 'The only serious remedy [to increasing CO₂ emissions] is demand restraint,' Dr Douglas Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said. 'Everything else — the nonsensical offset schemes, the utopian technology forecasts and now the implausible optimism surrounding 'sustainable' aviation fuel — is primarily a collection of elaborate misdirection techniques.' If aviation's emissions do grow as a proportion of the total, Airbus and Boeing could face societal pressure to do more. Nick Cunningham, managing partner at Agency Partners, an aerospace analysis firm, recently published a note on how 'complacency' on decarbonisation posed an 'existential risk' to the companies. Cunningham said planemakers were understandably reluctant to make large investments in new technology. 'Boeing does not at the moment have the financial resources to develop an all-new aircraft. Airbus has reason to be wary because some of its development programmes — the A380 and the A400M for example — ended up way over budget.' • Net zero by 2050 struggles with reality The Chinese aerospace industry could be a potential challenger. There are now 16 Comac C919s, the first modern Chinese airliner, in service, with a second, larger aircraft, the C929, expected to begin commercial flights towards the end of the decade. Cunningham said, however, that carbon reduction is not China's main goal. 'There could be a challenge from China, but for the moment it is concentrating on replacing imports of western aerospace equipment,' he said. One potential rival to the Airbus-Boeing hegemony is JetZero, a California-based company set up in 2021. It has ambitious plans to build a radical new type of passenger aircraft: a blended wing body, where the wings and fuselage are one smooth shape. The Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber, used by the US Air Force in the recent attacks against Iran, is such a design. JetZero claims its design could cut emissions in half compared to conventional designs. It has secured backing from two big US carriers, United Airlines and Alaska Airlines, including a commitment from them to buy aircraft. The USAF has awarded it a development contract for a potential new transport aircraft. 'JetZero is extremely interesting,' Cunningham said. 'The backing it has from airlines and the air force give it credibility, and it has very ambitious production plans. Its design would be more efficient than conventional aircraft, and crucially it would lend itself to a switch to hydrogen fuel when that is adopted.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Using Generative AI for therapy might feel like a lifeline – but there's danger in seeking certainty in a chatbot
Tran* sat across from me, phone in hand, scrolling. 'I just wanted to make sure I didn't say the wrong thing,' he explained, referring to a recent disagreement with his partner. 'So I asked ChatGPT what I should say.' He read the chatbot-generated message aloud. It was articulate, logical and composed – almost too composed. It didn't sound like Tran. And it definitely didn't sound like someone in the middle of a complex, emotional conversation about the future of a long-term relationship. It also did not mention anywhere some of Tran's contributing behaviours to the relationship strain that Tran and I had been discussing. Like many others I've seen in therapy recently, Tran had turned to AI in a moment of crisis. Under immense pressure at work and facing uncertainty in his relationship, he'd downloaded ChatGPT on his phone 'just to try it out'. What began as a curiosity soon became a daily habit, asking questions, drafting texts, and even seeking reassurance about his own feelings. The more Tran used it, the more he began to second-guess himself in social situations, turning to the model for guidance before responding to colleagues or loved ones. He felt strangely comforted, like 'no one knew me better'. His partner, on the other hand, began to feel like she was talking to someone else entirely. ChatGPT and other generative AI models present a tempting accessory, or even alternative, to traditional therapy. They're often free, available 24/7 and can offer customised, detailed responses in real time. When you're overwhelmed, sleepless and desperate to make sense of a messy situation, typing a few sentences into a chatbot and getting back what feels like sage advice can be very appealing. But as a psychologist, I'm growing increasingly concerned about what I'm seeing in the clinic; a silent shift in how people are processing distress and a growing reliance on artificial intelligence in place of human connection and therapeutic support. AI might feel like a lifeline when services are overstretched – and make no mistake, services are overstretched. Globally, in 2019 one in eight people were living with a mental illness and we face a dire shortage of trained mental health professionals. In Australia, there has been a growing mental health workforce shortage that is impacting access to trained professionals. Clinician time is one of the scarcest resources in healthcare. It's understandable (even expected) that people are looking for alternatives. Turning to a chatbot for emotional support isn't without risk however, especially when the lines between advice, reassurance and emotional dependence become blurred. Many psychologists, myself included, now encourage clients to build boundaries around their use of ChatGPT and similar tools. Its seductive 'always-on' availability and friendly tone can unintentionally reinforce unhelpful behaviours, especially for people with anxiety, OCD or trauma-related issues. Reassurance-seeking, for example, is a key feature in OCD and ChatGPT, by design, provides reassurance in abundance. It never asks why you're asking again. It never challenges avoidance. It never says, 'let's sit with this feeling for a moment, and practice the skills we have been working on'. Tran often reworded prompts until the model gave him an answer that 'felt right'. But this constant tailoring meant he wasn't just seeking clarity; he was outsourcing emotional processing. Instead of learning to tolerate distress or explore nuance, he sought AI-generated certainty. Over time, that made it harder for him to trust his own instincts. Beyond psychological concerns, there are real ethical issues. Information shared with ChatGPT isn't protected by the same confidentiality standards as registered Ahpra professionals. Although OpenAI states that data from users is not used to train its models unless permission is given, the sheer volume of fine print in user agreements often goes unread. Users may not realise how their inputs can be stored, analysed and potentially reused. There's also the risk of harmful or false information. These large language models are autoregressive; they predict the next word based on previous patterns. This probabilistic process can lead to 'hallucinations', confident, polished answers that are completely untrue. AI also reflects the biases embedded in its training data. Research shows that generative models can perpetuate and even amplify gender, racial and disability-based stereotypes – not intentionally, but unavoidably. Human therapists also possess clinical skills; we notice when a client's voice trembles, or when their silence might say more than words. This isn't to say AI can't have a place. Like many technological advancements before it, generative AI is here to stay. It may offer useful summaries, psycho-educational content or even support in regions where access to mental health professionals is severely limited. But it must be used carefully, and never as a replacement for relational, regulated care. Tran wasn't wrong to seek help. His instincts to make sense of distress and to communicate more thoughtfully were logical. However, leaning so heavily on to AI meant that his skill development suffered. His partner began noticing a strange detachment in his messages. 'It just didn't sound like you', she later told him. It turned out: it wasn't. She also became frustrated about the lack of accountability in his correspondence to her and this caused more relational friction and communication issues between them. As Tran and I worked together in therapy, we explored what led him to seek certainty in a chatbot. We unpacked his fears of disappointing others, his discomfort with emotional conflict and his belief that perfect words might prevent pain. Over time, he began writing his own responses, sometimes messy, sometimes unsure, but authentically his. Good therapy is relational. It thrives on imperfection, nuance and slow discovery. It involves pattern recognition, accountability and the kind of discomfort that leads to lasting change. A therapist doesn't just answer; they ask and they challenge. They hold space, offer reflection and walk with you, while also offering up an uncomfortable mirror. For Tran, the shift wasn't just about limiting his use of ChatGPT; it was about reclaiming his own voice. In the end, he didn't need a perfect response. He needed to believe that he could navigate life's messiness with curiosity, courage and care – not perfect scripts. Name and identifying details changed to protect client confidentiality Carly Dober is a psychologist living and working in Naarm/Melbourne In Australia, support is available at Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636, Lifeline on 13 11 14, and at MensLine on 1300 789 978. In the UK, the charity Mind is available on 0300 123 3393 and Childline on 0800 1111. In the US, call or text Mental Health America at 988 or chat
