>They also got a lot of problems in Brazil due to schoolchildren using it for harassment -- Google and Apple received court orders to remove the application from their stores.
The original OP I replied to asserted it was a negative-only application. But it is just a tool and blaming the code for the actions of its users erases any good that it may also do. And just as TOR, proxies, and VPNs can be abused, they also provide an important function for good. If an application should be banned because it could be abused, then what is the limit to what is good and what is bad, and who decides that?
When laws are in place to prevent jailbreaking or using alternative app stores, and those app stores are ordered to remove that application (by court order), for the majority of individuals it is banned (from a strictly law-abiding perspective). danieltillett was positing that it was good that Google and Apple had it ordered for removal because it was abused. But if we assert that it is acceptable to ban anything that can be abused, how does one (or everyone) decide that one tool should be banned but not another? That is what I was asking, and then I was told that no one mentioned banning yet DT and OP were both discussing the ban of an application.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get all stress-testing tools removed from the internet because someone could possibly use them to DDoS a site /s
>The original OP I replied to asserted it was a negative-only application. But it is just a tool and blaming the code for the actions of its users erases any good that it may also do.
Actually I didn't say that it was negative-only application. I said that it was a nasty tool for nasty people to do nasty things. Nice people can use a nasty tool to do good things, but since the usage of Secret cliff dived as soon as nasty people weren't able to do nasty things anymore, then I think we can conclude it really had only one function - to help nasty people to be nasty.
Edit. I suspect that the founders didn't expect this to be the only use for Secret, but the investors should have known better given the history of anonymous platforms.
