I don't understand what you mean. The blog is very clear about that being the problem.
The blog is also very clear that the author, personally, does not understand why this is a problem.
> I had scraped data for all students at IIT Delhi, and made a profile for all of them.
> anyone could make an anonymous account, and then comment anything on anyone's profile. Each profile also had 4 fields, where you could tag anyone, in the "has dated", "crushing on", "crushed on by" or "haters" category.
I am surprised that OP, having seen that movie and quoting lines from it during his meeting with the administration, didn't see this coming.
> also at one point i literally said the social network dialogue, " I feel like i deserve some recognition from you guys"
Like hell it is. I got news for you - every website hurts someone's sentiments. That's no reason to gatekeep.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JuicyCampus
[1]: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/03/07/yik-yak-re-em...
As for your claims that people like it because lots of people were using it, you are being ignorant. People in the community refresh on sites like this/flock to them because of fear. They are afraid of what people are saying about themselves and their friends.
I guarantee if you actually polled users you'd find the vast vast majority of them would wish the site didn't exist. Usage != Support.
- You created profiles for students without consent
- You enabled anonymous posts about identifiable individuals
- There was no effective moderation/control system
Core issue: once you're aware of harmful content, you’re expected to act. If you don't address it in a reasonable time, you can become legally liable.
By allowing anonymous commentary, scraping every student's data and seeding the conversation around "rumors", you created an environment that is perfect for targeted harassment. You created the platform and maintained it; what happens on that platform is absolutely your responsibility.
I highly recommend that you take this opportunity to do some introspection and consider why so many people were upset.
If four thousand kids were all laughing at a rumor that you had a small dick, and every girl you were interested in laughed you out the door for the rest of your college career, would you really be like "it's ok, 4k people are having fun"?
I guarantee OP would be the guy calling the site operator and threatening to jump him.
you're writing to a broader audience than you think, and you've already marked yourself as a crybaby richboy d-bag.
maybe start a podcast.
Were there lots of people upset? Or was it a small number of people with power who were upset? Like, I'm not at all surprised by how this played out, but it's not clear that anyone was upset beyond some people who don't take well to criticism.
For example, there are people who watch some sick shit on the internet, that doesn't mean you should serve it up.
1. IT Act 2000 — Section 66C / 66D (Identity Fraud / Impersonation) You student data and sent emails appearing to come from or relate to official IIT systems. The email notification system especially is sketchy. sending emails to official addresses using student identity data without consent borders on unauthorized use of identity/credentials.
2. IT Act 2000 — Section 43 (Unauthorized Access / Data Theft) Scraping student data from IIT Delhi’s internal systems without authorization is almost certainly a violation here. Section 43 covers unauthorized access to computer systems and extraction of data.
3. Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices) Rules, 2011 You collected and published sensitive personal data (romantic relationships, social associations) without consent, no privacy policy, no opt-out. This is a clear violation of the SPDI Rules under the IT Act.
4. Indian Penal Code Section 499/500 — Defamation The platform explicitly hosted rumors, gossip, and accusations (dating history, “haters”). Anonymous posts that damage reputation = defamation. As the platform operator and publisher, you have exposure. Unlike Twitter or Reddit, you’re not a passive host. You designed the romantic/social tagging features.
5. IPC Section 354D — Stalking The “crushing on / crushed on by” fields combined with the email notification system is very problematic. Enabling someone to anonymously tag another person and then notify them about it could constitute facilitation of stalking.
Also, it was simply uncool.
They wrote at the bottom:
> I'm going to be THE WHIZ KID BILLIONAIRE OF THIS GENERATION. WITNESS HISTORY.
Hey, wonderful. But the rules apply to us all, your whiz-ness.
Seed funders are likely notice these personality traits and refuse to invest, because someone with those qualities is an investment risk for multiple reasons. For example, in this story you've infringed a brand name, scraped and used personal data without permissions - likely also breaking terms of use, created accounts portraying real people without their permission, established a system to defame (the relationship component), created unwanted spam (emailing university emails automatically) and failed to have in place appropriate moderation. Why would investors put their money against such a risky proposition?
OP needs to realize that we are no longer in 2005 when the Facebook was founded. Nor is he in the US. He's in India which has much different laws and culture. And case law and our understanding of the harms of cyber bullying and harassment has drastically evolved since 2005.
OP should also realize that this is at IIT in India. There's already a huge suicide problem amongst students in India due to competition. Adding cyber harassment to that isn't the best idea.
Sounds a little bit like that.