I recently saw a screenshot from one of these apps (so I can't guarantee its authenticity. But it's not an inconceivable scenario). Someone posted a man in there with his photo. The elephant in the room is that the man is dead! His ex-wife (with whom he had children) is enraged by this and is demanding to have it removed. Instead of addressing her concern, one of them decides to report her!
Now this may be an anecdotal argument. But when it pertains individual rights and human dignity, even a single violation is sufficient to question the ethics and legality of such endeavors. An important fact here is that nobody has absolute rights. Any rights are valid only as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. So, smearing, maligning and vilifying someone cannot be justified in the name of 'women's safety'.
This is one of those cases where you can't find a balance between both sides. One side is objectively wrong. Ruining the lives of any number of innocent men must not be an acceptable compromise for ensuring women's safety. There must be ways to achieve that without causing such widespread collateral damage. Their argument to the contrary is not just lazy, it reeks of hubris and contempt.
I recently saw a screenshot from one of these apps (so I can't guarantee its authenticity. But it's not an inconceivable scenario). Someone posted a man in there with his photo. The elephant in the room is that the man is dead! His ex-wife (with whom he had children) is enraged by this and is demanding to have it removed. Instead of addressing her concern, one of them decides to report her!
Now this may be an anecdotal argument. But when it pertains individual rights and human dignity, even a single violation is sufficient to question the ethics and legality of such endeavors. An important fact here is that nobody has absolute rights. Any rights are valid only as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. So, smearing, maligning and vilifying someone cannot be justified in the name of 'women's safety'.
This is one of those cases where you can't find a balance between both sides. One side is objectively wrong. Ruining the lives of any number of innocent men must not be an acceptable compromise for ensuring women's safety. There must be ways to achieve that without causing such widespread collateral damage. Their argument to the contrary is not just lazy, it reeks of hubris and contempt.