Donald Trump forced Tinder to focus on fighting sexual harassment


Sean Rad, the founder of Tinder, made an appearance at Web Summit in Lisbon and he addressed a very sensitive subject. According to Rad, president-elect Donald Trump's scandalous video from 2005 made the team behind the popular dating app rethink the way it handles sexual harassment on its platform.

“It forced us as a team to focus on what is appropriate,” said Sean Rad. “Locker room talk is absolutely unacceptable, it's unacceptable out there in the real world and it's unacceptable at Tinder.”

According to Rad, the dating app is a platform for bad behavior and, in his own words, “how we officially react is important”. So, the team behind Tinder will be focusing on ensuring that the app is a productive place where you can meet new people, but also have great conversations.

Rad and company will be bringing changes to the features of the app, too. “Our users have tools to report unwanted behavior – we have these tools, and we want to make them better,” he said. The creator of Tinder also hinted towards other ideas he has for the long-term to give users more tools to stay safe from harassment.

We at PhoneArena wish him good luck with his battle, as it will probably be a long and hard one. But it will also make for safer, friendlier web, which is truly a valiant goal.

source: BusinessInsider

FEATURED VIDEO

69 Comments

12. patrioticwarrior

Posts: 134; Member since: Nov 09, 2016

though i don't like him but majority of american voted for him in a democratic election now stop whining mainstream media.

13. Landon

Posts: 1242; Member since: May 07, 2015

Not even the majority of people voted for him. Do some research, bud. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

17. patrioticwarrior

Posts: 134; Member since: Nov 09, 2016

well nytime is a quite biased news outlet bud.

18. 87186

Posts: 312; Member since: Aug 01, 2014

bias doesn't play a role here. it's fact. hillary won the popular vote. the US' electoral process is a joke, just like its recent candidates.

57. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015

not the first time and not the last both democrat and republican got elected like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where_winner_lost_popular_vote

21. Macready

Posts: 1813; Member since: Dec 08, 2014

All popular vote polls show Hillary won that one. Funny detail, Trump said in 2012 that the electoral vote part was a system flaw. He should be thankful for it.

58. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015

And he will probably try and make this change :)

30. tnuc2014

Posts: 294; Member since: Sep 12, 2014

He won...get over it!!

49. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Why? Its been two days. Eight years later the right hasn't gotten over Obama winning?

14. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Yeah, more people voted for Clinton, though not many more. Yet another reason we need to eliminate the electoral college.

19. jontaylor07

Posts: 169; Member since: Oct 12, 2015

There's a reason that Californians come out in droves for Clinton while people in Arkansas (and other poor, rural areas) dislike her. Her policies hurt some people while helping others. This is why we have the electoral college, the popular majority will always be willing to hurt another person for their own gain, so we have to have barriers between simple popular vote and elections.

23. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

There is no one size fits all policy. It's supposed to be one person, one vote. If someone is elected with fewer votes, then that means one candidate's votes counted as more than another's. And, the actually reason we have the electoral college was the founders didn't trust the people to choose a president. When the popular vote was added, the electors were kept. It's an archaic system in which votes don't count evenly. Eliminate it.

59. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015

When media will be force to not take side and stay neutral and report the full truth on both candidate not only one. Then we can have it thats way. Right now too much propaganda from establishment owned media. You guys want the popular vote to take priority but are okay with media manipulating it. such bad double standard.

66. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Like the right press didn't do the exact same thing, only more so. This "the whole world is against us" shtick the Republicans have been leaning on for thirty years is getting old.

22. McLTE

Posts: 922; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

The electoral college is in place to give all states a voice in government. Without it, the most populated states will be the only states that matter for elections.

24. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

With it, some votes count more than others. States don't vote, citizens do, and each citizen's vote should be equal.

60. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 2015

UnitedSTATE the name see it if you make it too unbalanced then its loose it purpose.

67. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you didn't.

25. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

And, it's in place because the founding fathers didn't trust us to pick our leader.

27. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Also, we already have a system in place for that. The Senate, where each state gets two elected officials regardless of population. But, if population is so important, why don't we elect all officials this way. Give every town or county in a state winner take all electors. I live in South Jersey, because of the population density, North Jersey decides all the issues/winners. Because that would mean that my vote would count as more than another person's. That's not right. The electoral college is an archaic holdover that needs to be removed.

31. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2314; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

There's also a House of Representatives which gives proportional representation based on population. California has the large majority of representatives in the House. Our founding fathers felt there needed to be a balance - one house where each state got the same amount of votes and one house where each state got representation that was based on populations and counties. The House is supposed to be the most in touch with the citizens of each state, whereas the Senate is supposed to be the equalizer that gives every state no matter the size an equal representation. So a lot of the bills start in the House because that's who is most on the ground in terms of representation and the Senate gives everyone an equal vote whether it should be adopted by all or not.

46. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Which makes the electoral college unneeded. Twice now in the last two decades it has given the presidency to the person with fewer votes.

51. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2314; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

Well you may think that way, but again the likelihood that the electoral college will ever be repealed is slim chances. You would have to have 38 states pass a constitutional amendment. I doubt any of those midwestern or southern states would vote for it.

73. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/Founding-Fathers-Distrusted-Popular-Vote-to-Pick-President-400808711.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_PHBrand This article outlines a way to change the system that doesn't need a constitutional amendment. It's actually quite clever.

28. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2314; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

Good luck with that. The electoral college has been around since the founding of this country. It's in our Constitution. It would take an amendment to repeal it which would most likely never happen.

34. tnuc2014

Posts: 294; Member since: Sep 12, 2014

What a bs story....so you are telling me that locker talk didn't exist before Donald Trump? He wasn't the first and he won't be the last person to indulge in such behaviour. He will clearly have to be very careful and what he says and where he says it from now on, but Mrs Clinton has openly admitted that she says one thing in public and another in private, so I'm sure Mr Trump can hone these skills quite quickly.

36. sissy246

Posts: 7035; Member since: Mar 04, 2015

"What a bs story....so you are telling me that locker talk didn't exist before Donald Trump? He wasn't the first and he won't be the last person to indulge in such behaviour" I don't like the guy at all but I do agree with this.

37. tnuc2014

Posts: 294; Member since: Sep 12, 2014

Nor do I !! He has got the sort of smug face you want to smack before he even opens his mouth....and then he opens his mouth!! I can't help feeling that his intentions are good though. He only says what most people are thinking. I just hope he can garner the support he needs to pull us away from the brink of war. I also hope he can stay alive at least until he is sworn in!! You have to admire him because he has had to fight the Clinton camp, his own party, the media and the Elite to get this result. He certainly has staying power, but it remains to be seen if he can truly make a difference.

45. tedkord

Posts: 17198; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Pull us back from the brink of war? All he wants is a war.

48. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Really? What about the pointless war ongoing in Syria, and the uncountable number of drone strikes which Obama has conducted? The same Obama who endorsed Hillary Clinton! She isn't any better than Trump.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.