[discordance]

It's a nice idea but curious how will you get around the following:

1. If people with an unsafe reputation can opt themselves out, then won't women still be exposed to that unsafe match?

2. Breakups can be messy. How do you prevent false information being reported in?

3. If someone requests their information through GDPR and finds false reports on them, how will you handle the risk of defamation lawsuits?

[Georgii007]

1.Yes, people with bad reputations may try to "unsubscribe" from the system, and it is true that this creates a potential blind spot. But the right to opt-out and defamation defense is more important. Here there will be a balancing act between private security and public harm.

2. The risks of false information are real. This is one of the most difficult parts of the project. I envision:

- Multi-stage moderation - Plausibility signals (AI filtering, account activity) - Ability to "reply" or mark as "challenged"

3. If someone requests data via GDPR and finds false accusations - they should be able to challenge, track, get a response and get it removed. I plan to build in a dispute resolution mechanism to not only comply with the law, but to ensure fairness for all parties.

I repeat: the project was conceived with good intentions, but these risks are not just hypothetical - they are structural. I am grateful that you have voiced them at this stage. If you have ideas or experience in similar systems - I would be very happy to dialog.

[dns_snek]

> Multi-stage moderation - Plausibility signals (AI filtering, account activity) - Ability to "reply" or mark as "challenged"

Will you require hard evidence as a matter of policy before publishing any allegations? That's the only thing that would set you apart from many previous implementations of this idea which always seem to turn into hateful and defamatory platforms.

"Plausibility signals" like AI filtering are only good for filtering outright spam and bot activity, they're useless for determining truthfulness of claims being made. If your goal is to publish truthful information then please take some lessons from the legal system because truth can only be ascertained by analyzing evidence, not by evaluating the accuser's social standing ("account activity") and asking a random village idiot for their opinion on one side of the story ("AI filtering").

And the whole process of "people can respond and ask for it to be taken down" is not good enough because by that time the damage could already be done. People who have done nothing wrong have no reason to proactively monitor and "curate" their public image on sites like these, so they're unlikely to discover false accusations against them until they either experience social consequences of those false allegations or they're lucky enough that someone who knows them well discovers it early and sticks up for them.

[discordance]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses and best of luck with this.

[Georgii007]

Thank you!