I downloaded Tea, the man-shaming app. Here's what I learnt
Tea, founded in 2023 by the Silicon Valley developer Sean Cook, went viral on Wednesday after more than one million women signed up in the past week.
The app uses AI to verify users' selfies and ensure that they are women. Once verified, users can post photos of men — mainly scraped from dating profiles — and demand 'the tea', or gossip, about them from other female users.
The concept is the same as the viral Facebook group 'Are we dating the same guy?', in which women appeal for dirt on the men they date. But Tea takes the idea to a whole new level, using reverse image search to find other online photos of the men and exposing potentially slanderous details about them — fake names, double lives, you name it. The AI tool that dredges up these smears is called 'Catfish Finder AI'.
The app can also expose phone numbers, perform background checks, and dig up criminal histories and public records. But it is the Tea Party Group Chat that is causing the most concern from disgruntled male daters. While the app uses a moderation tool called 'SafeSip' to remove harmful content, men on X are complaining that they're being 'doxxed' — a form of cyberbullying where private information is posted without the person's consent.
One man laments that it's 'a place where hurt women can … tell a one-sided story about men and damage their name without any context or proof'; another worries about a future destroyed by 'surveillance by our peers'.
Free to download and exclusive to the US, Tea is not easy to access. I had to submit a selfie (to verify that I am a woman) before being added to a waiting list behind 13,000 other potential users. Even though I was able to move to the front of the line by recommending the app to a friend — a feature intended to boost usership — it takes hours to be accepted. And having scoured men's rights boards on Reddit, I begin to doubt the efficacy of the sex-verification tool at all: one man boasted that he gained access to the app after he 'asked ChatGPT' to transform his picture into that of a woman.
Tea bills itself as 'dating safety tool'
You don't have to get inside the Tea app to feel its toxicity. Screenshots from the app on Reddit reveal some shocking claims from female users. 'Avoid this man!!' says one. 'His name is [redacted]. He has mouth herpes and STDs. He lies to get what he wants then will ghost you after.'
Another man is described as 'abusive, pathological liar, manic and victim mentality. Loves drama.' Another user calls a guy a 'meth addict. Will emotionally and physically abuse women. Secret life with gay older men.' In other examples, women post pictures of their partners while they are sleeping to find out if other women recognise him. Users are even able to set alerts for a particular man's name.
This Tea is bitter indeed.
When I downloaded the app, it gave me a series of promises: 'everything is anonymous', 'screenshots are impossible', 'you can search all posts in the country by a man's name'. Reassuring, certainly — as long as you're a woman using it, and not a man who could be torn apart by gossip.
And yet Tea claims to be doing good. To reinforce this altruistic 'purpose', it declares that 10 per cent of its proceeds are donated to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
Here's the truth: Tea pours fuel on an already fraught dating scene for my generation. It may be well intentioned, but it will inevitability chill any sense of romantic risk or hope for authenticity among my peers. Worse, the app hides behind the idea of transparency: nothing to hide, nothing to fear. But this is simply vigilante justice, entirely reliant on the scruples of anonymous women. With Tea on the scene, what man would ever dare date a woman again?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Why Donald Trump's tariffs take aim at Asia and your iPhones
When he began his trade war, President Donald Trump said his goal was to bring American jobs and manufacturing back to the US, reduce trade deficits and create a more level playing field for American companies competing globally. But after months of negotiations and many countries' refusal to meet America's demands, his strategy has taken a more punitive companies have been here before. Under Trump's first administration, when he imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, they scrambled to limit their exposure to Beijing, with many shifting production to Vietnam, Thailand and India to avoid higher levies. But his battery of new tariffs does not spare any of these economies. Stocks saw a sell-off, with benchmark indexes in Taiwan and South Korea in the red on Friday. Both countries are central to Asia's sprawling electronics production. The details are still hazy, but US firms from Apple to Nvidia will likely be paying more for their supply chains - they source critical components from several Asian countries and assemble devices in the they are on the hook - for iPhones, chips, batteries, and scores of other tiny components that power modern lives. It's not good news for Asian economies that have grown and become richer because of exports and foreign investment - from Japanese cars to South Korean electronics to Taiwanese chips. Soaring demand for all these goods fuelled trade surpluses with Washington over the years - and has driven President Trump's charge that Asian manufacturing has been taking American jobs away. In May, Trump told Apple CEO Tim Cook: "We put up with all the plants you built in China for years... we are not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves." Apple earns roughly half its revenue by selling iPhones that are manufactured in China, Vietnam and India. The tech giant reported bumper earnings for the three months to June, hours before Trump's tariff announcement on Thursday night, but now the future looks more executive Tim Cook told analysts on a conference call that tariffs had already cost Apple $800m (£600m) in the previous quarter, and may add $1.1bn in costs to the next quarter. Tech companies typically plan years ahead, but Trump's unpredictable tariff policy has paralysed businesses. Amazon's online marketplace, for instance, is just as dependent on China for what it sells in the US. But it's not yet clear what rates Chinese imports into the US could face because Beijing has yet to strike a deal with Washington - it has until 12 August to do so. Before they agreed to de-escalate, the two sides imposed tit-for-tat tariffs that reached a staggering 145% on some goods. But it's no longer just about China. On Thursday, Mr Cook said that most iPhones sold in the US now come from India. But Trump has just levelled a 25% tariff on Indian imports, after Delhi was unable to clinch a deal in time. Other firms chose to re-route their goods bound for the US through Vietnam and Thailand after the tariffs in Trump's first term. It became so common that it was called the "China+1" strategy. But this time, these trans-shipped goods are also being targeted. In fact, trans-shipping has been a big part of the US negotiations with Asian countries. Vietnamese imports face a 20% US levy but trans-shipped goods face 40%, according to Trump. It's harder still for advanced manufacturing like semiconductors - more than half of the world's chips, and most of its advanced ones, come from Taiwan. It is now subject to a 20% tariff. Chips are the backbone of Taiwan's economy, but also central to US efforts to gain a technological lead over China. So it is another US company, Nvidia, that will pay steep levies to put advanced chips by Taiwan's TSMC inside its AI products. But perhaps the biggest casualty of Trump's tariffs could well be Asia's e-commerce giants - as well as the American companies that rely on Chinese sellers and marketplaces. In a surprise move this week, Trump ditched the "de minimis" rule which exempted parcels under $800 from customs duties. He first did this in May, targeting such parcels from China and Hong Kong - and this was a blow for retailers like Shein and Temu, whose huge success has come from online sales in the West. Now American sites like eBay and Etsy have also lost that exemption - and the price of second-hand, vintage and handmade items for US customers will go up. President Trump says he is batting for Americans with these tariffs, but in a deeply globalised world, US firms and customers could also become casualties. There is still so much uncertainty that it is hard to see who the winners really are.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US appeals court agrees to pause Google app store reform order for now
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday agreed to delay a sweeping overhaul of Google's app store Play, as the technology giant continues to challenge a judge's order requiring the reforms in a lawsuit brought by 'Fortnite' video game maker Epic Games. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Google's request for a temporary pause of the order. Google said earlier on Friday, opens new tab that it planned to further appeal the judge's October injunction, which a 9th Circuit panel upheld on Thursday in a unanimous decision. The injunction, which had already been paused while the 9th Circuit considered Google's appeal, required Google to restore competition by allowing users to download rival app stores within its Play store and by making Play's app catalog available to those competitors, among other reforms. Google said the lower court's injunction was expected to take effect in 14 days absent a court order blocking it. In granting Google's request for an administrative stay on Friday, the appeals court gave the company until Aug. 8 to ask the court to put the injunction on hold for the duration of its appeal. Google said it plans to ask the full 9th Circuit to take up its appeal, and if necessary will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Google and Epic did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Epic in its 2020 lawsuit accused Google of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps. The Cary, North Carolina-based company convinced a San Francisco jury in 2023 that Google illegally stifled competition. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco issued his Play store injunction against Google in October after a jury earlier ruled for Epic. Google has denied any wrongdoing. In upholding the injunction on Thursday, a 9th Circuit panel said the record in Epic's lawsuit was 'replete with evidence that Google's anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance." The case is Epic Games v. Google, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-6256. For Epic: Gary Bornstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore For Google: Jessica Ellsworth of Hogan Lovells Read more: Google loses US appeal over app store reforms in Epic Games case Apple cites Supreme Court's birthright ruling in fight over Epic Games injunction US judge delays Texas antitrust trial over Google digital ads Epic Games settles lawsuit against Samsung over app controls
Finextra
7 hours ago
- Finextra
How long before the GENIUS Act helps your business run faster and cheaper?
0 This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community. If you conduct business internationally to or from the US, you might be able to save a lot of money, especially on cross-border payments - and also get those payments done much more quickly - in the near future thanks to stablecoin adoption. Even better, with blockchain encryption and security in place for everyone, it could be safer and easier to manage than traditional payment practices. That's what fiat-backed stablecoin promoters and providers are promising they'll deliver for global commerce. But, while you should definitely explore potential opportunities, don't count your savings in money or time yet, as it might be a while before all the lofty predictions for 'stablecoins as saviours' to become a reality. How long depends on both political decisions and regulator policies being finalised now and in the coming months – not to mention the required coordination of many 'links' in the stablecoin value chain of system designers and operators, and financial institutions too – though all parties seem to be working hard to move the needle forward on stablecoin adoption as quickly as possible. Stablecoin traffic already exceeded value of both top card networks combined in 2024 Stablecoin statistics continue to show impressive increases in both volume and value. According to the World Economic Forum, the number of stablecoins in circulation jumped more than 28% year-over-year. Values transferred surpassed the combined totals from both Visa and Mastercard transactions in 2024 – reaching $27.6 trillion in USD equivalent. The US has joined Europe (MiCA) and Hong Kong in passing legislation governing digital assets, while a number of private firms based in the US have either issued stablecoins already or purchased companies who have done so to add to their capabilities. But they might be facing greater hurdles to operation and differentiation as a result of the new definitions and regulations passed into law. Still, when the U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) was signed by President Trump two weeks ago, it was hailed by crypto industry and many financial services and international business advocates as being a revolutionary leap forward for the country and its primacy in worldwide commerce. Bipartisan endorsement in Congress of the legislation signalled broad agreement among many on the potential of stablecoin to cement the US dollar's continuing position at the top of the global financial hierarchy. The GENIUS Act, the initials of which stand for Guaranteeing Essential National Infrastructure in US-Stablecoins, represents the culmination of US efforts to take top prize in the global stablecoin promotion and regulation stakes. It's a one of few measures in a sharply divided Congress that gained support from both major parties, achieving passage in the House of Representatives with about a three-fourths positive vote. In the Senate, the tally was a bit more one-sided as 50 Republicans and 18 Democrats (69% to 31% - with 30 members voting 'no') supported Senate bill 1582's passage and forwarded it to the president. As of July 18, it became the law of the land. Why is the GENIUS Act so popular? Specifically, the GENIUS Act does three things: Defines legal stablecoin issuers as limited to insured depository institutions, e.g. banks, credit unions, subsidiaries of banks and nonbank financial institutions that receive approval from the Federal Reserve and demonstrate the ability to comply with the relevant law. States can also separately qualify and regulate stablecoin issuance within their borders, but only up to $10 billion or less per issuer. Requires holding of 1:1 reserves for any stablecoins issued, in physical currency, demand deposits, US treasury bills, repurchase agreements, or other low-risk assets approved by regulators. These reserves must be reported monthly in terms of portfolio composition and also be audited regularly by 'registered public accounting firms,' according to the official bill summary. Mandates that while 'permitted payment stablecoins are not considered securities under securities law,' all stablecoin issuers must comply with the Bank Secrecy Act, and implement measures protecting against money laundering (AML) and the financing of terrorism (CFT) and bolstering consumer protection. Just like 'standard' payments must do. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is now the designated regulator of federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers, while the 'appropriate federal banking agency of an insured depository institution is the regulator of a payment stablecoin issuer that is a subsidiary of an insured depository institution,' per opinions on the issue from Sidley law firm. Additionally, foreign issuers of stablecoins may offer, sell, or make available stablecoins using digital asset service providers, though they must be fully vetted by the Department of Treasury as being subject to 'comparable foreign regulations' within their country of origin. How they'll actually be vetted is not yet clear. There might be more than bargained for in the 'whole package' of digital assets bills in DC The GENIUS Act was passed as part of what may end up as a three-bill 'package deal' – as two companion bills (or actually, three with only two likely to survive) have now cleared the House enroute to consideration within the Senate chamber in the coming weeks. Even with stablecoins defined and regulations specified in the US for their issuance, backing, and reporting, there's some confusion still on definitions, regulatory requirements, and oversight plans concerning other digital assets. One bill, called the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act reflects lingering disagreement on priorities in government and industry circles. It was passed in the US House of Representatives in early July. It's written to be a counterpoint to conservative concerns about the US developing its own central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC) and thus closely monitoring its use within the marketplace. These worries were described in Kiplinger as surrounding 'government-sponsored blockchains of citizen transactions (perceived as) too close to Big Brother financial surveillance. Hence, the name of the bill includes opposition to both CBDC as well as the 'surveillance state.'" The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, now passed by the US House of Representatives on a 294-134 vote and also on its way to the Senate, is the second piece of legislation related to the GENIUS Act boasting wide and bipartisan support. Still, some concerns have been voiced about its investor protections verbiage, as it transfers oversight duties on certain digital assets from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC), among other things. The CLARITY Act 'defines a digital commodity as 'a digital asset that is intrinsically linked to a blockchain system, and the value of which is derived from or is reasonably expected to be derived from the use of the blockchain system.' However, there are divergent views on how to handle crypto assets other than payments on both sides of the political aisle in the Senate. Another bill, the Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025 (RFIA) is also under consideration, and it would take a different approach to market regulation and classification of digital assets. The RFIA would establish a larger oversight role for the SEC, over which the Senate Banking Committee has jurisdiction. Though the CLARITY ACT and RFIA overlap in some respects, they still differ substantially. That means there must be a negotiation among Republican leadership and other supporters to choose which will survive the other and be put up to a vote in the Senate – then passed back to the House for approval before finalisation and submission for signature to the president. It's not yet certain just which proposal will win out in the Senate, but it's clear that the approach of the CLARITY Act has broad support outside the legislative chambers and in a number of diverse quarters in the business and financial arena. CLARITY's focus on standards earns support from all corners of crypto world In the words of the nonprofit Decentralization Research Center, the CLARITY Act's 'robust, control-based decentralisation test for digital assets,' would create 'a much-needed standard for evaluating when a digital asset has met a threshold to justify its transition from security to commodity,' which the organisation's leaders call 'an essential step for effective market structure legislation.' The Crypto Council for Innovation, which calls itself the 'premier global alliance for advancing the promise' of digital assets with 'seasoned experts from government, finance, tech and law,' said in its own letter to Congress that 'CLARITY strengthens disclosures, safeguards customer funds, and creates a path for compliant digital asset firms to build in the US. It balances consumer protection with market certainty and brings the US closer to frameworks already advancing overseas.' It's expected that one of these main digital asset regulatory frameworks now under consideration will advance from Congress before the end of the year, and if so, according to Akin Gump law firm, it would represent a major step forward for crypto in the financial world: 'a watershed moment for the industry not just in the U.S., but globally.' How soon will all these (passed or proposed) changes in crypto regulation impact your business? Changes in financial services always take more time than expected. The likely wait for impacts of the GENIUS and its companion bills/laws to start creating more than ripples in the financial services pool is no different. The GENIUS law governing stablecoins in the US doesn't take effect until 2027, and even then, many questions remain about potential changes in the regulation or its implementation – especially in concert with similar laws now in place or being instituted by other countries around the world. These challenges might extend its effective date as much as 120 days further into that year. Still, given what we have been reading constantly in the news regarding the GENIUS Act and its companion pieces of legislation, it's clear that no matter their ultimate forms or frameworks, these landmark digital asset laws will combine to exert a huge influence on future financial services offerings and practices in the US and abroad. Speculation ranges far and wide on just what fiat-backed, blockchain-enabled stablecoins authorised by the US government will immediately and ultimately mean to the payments world in terms of costs, timing, and verification of what will primarily be international transactions – at least to start. Fraud continues to be a concern with stablecoins as with any payment methods, as the fraudsters always seem to find ways to infiltrate nearly every legitimate transaction network designed, no matter what its protections. But, most advocates and even some opponents are hailing what they predict as a much brighter future of blockchain-secured, dramatically reduced cross-border financial transfer timelines, dropping transnational payment execution intervals from multiple days in some cases down to a few minutes or even seconds. They also foresee costs for such transfers being reduced dramatically - from double-digits of USD in expense each - to perhaps only pennies per transaction. As history has taught us, however, the pricing and efficiency of stablecoin payments will be proven in the 'real world' of daily commerce. Complete answers and transparency on actual provider expenses, operational friction, client-realised costs, transaction timing, other benefits, and, of course, potential pitfalls are for now difficult to ascertain in this nascent stablecoin marketplace. Whatever laws ultimately emerge from Congress to join the GENIUS Act's stablecoin rules and regulations, there's no doubt that the legislative and executive branch leaders now in power in the US are doing nearly all they can to encourage the acceptance of crypto and payments to ensure the country's pre-eminence in global financial affairs. It's no surprise either that the virtually exploding crypto industry, feeling the political wind at its back, is happily jumping onboard for the ride. Stablecoin providers all along the value chain – bank, nonbank, and fintech - will surely keep pressing for their offerings to supplant many traditional, and typically slower and more expensive, payment rails and methods in the US and across the globe. We'll know, maybe within a year or two, if they're successful.
