[HN Gopher] Top Mental Health and Prayer Apps Fail at Privacy, S...
___________________________________________________________________
Top Mental Health and Prayer Apps Fail at Privacy, Security (2022)
Author : TrisMcC
Score : 148 points
Date : 2023-06-21 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (foundation.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (foundation.mozilla.org)
| dolmen wrote:
| About
| https://foundation.mozilla.org/fr/privacynotincluded/categor...
|
| Privacy not included there also: that Mozilla web site use Google
| Fonts and Google Tag Manager which are not GDPR compliant.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| iOS or Android, both get your data. What is the difference in
| privacy? Please use actual examples and not boogeymen 'Google is
| an ad company'.
|
| I personally have seen iphones(or at least iphone users) have far
| more intrusive and customized ads to the point where saying a
| word in a home puts you at risk of getting physical mail related
| to that word. (It was dog food, and a dog food ad.)
|
| I've come to the conclusion that privacy and security are mostly
| theater, and if I am being realistic, I need to assume everything
| I say/do is being recorded. I also treat my devices as
| compromised. Any thoughts that your device is private or secure
| is delusion.
| chrisallenlane wrote:
| FWIW, I don't have any pets (and haven't for some time), but I
| receive physical mail regarding dog food, dog toys, etc, all
| the time. There's a chance you've been fooled by randomness
| here.
|
| That said, there's certainly no harm in treating your device as
| compromised. I do the same. "Better safe than sorry."
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Well, the specific name of the company that was mentioned
| showed up, and us getting 0 dog related stuff prior, and 0
| dog stuff since, makes it sus.
| haswell wrote:
| Missing is the "Waking Up" meditation app which is a treasure
| trove of content and the first app that helped me "get"
| meditation.
|
| I submitted it on their form for review, but was a little
| surprised to see it missing from a "top" list.
|
| Seeing this report makes me really want to build privacy-
| respecting apps in this space. Of all categories, using
| traditional monetization and data selling practices seems
| particularly bad here.
|
| (Not affiliated in any way; just a happy customer hoping they
| aren't abusing my data too badly...)
| anotheraccount9 wrote:
| This is concerning. I'm using one of these services and if my
| mental health details were to be known, I would not only feel
| devastated, but this would negatively impact my career and social
| life (for a long time?). I need to know I can trust these folks,
| but what are other options? I can't find any psychologists or
| psychotherapists in my area who are available (many don't even
| answer my calls or emails). Do you know of any good and
| trustworthy online services for this?
| adamwong246 wrote:
| I believe that this problem is one of sheer personal
| responsibility. That is, I don't really trust therapists much
| more than these apps. Support groups and self-help books are
| better but in the end, only pure "shadow work" can really save
| you. You must learn to be your own therapist.
| xctr94 wrote:
| As someone that did shadow work, this is disingenuous and
| unhelpful. People undergoing depression or PTSD can't be told
| to "man up" and work on themselves alone. Therapists are
| usually very careful with confidentiality.
| lynx23 wrote:
| [flagged]
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Believe it or not, a lot of people are not aware this is a
| major problem for wellness/prayer apps specifically. I was one
| of those people and found this interesting. You're being
| needlessly snarky and condescending.
| bell-cot wrote:
| My reaction, too. OTOH, the article is pretty obviously aimed
| at an audience which might really benefit from some more
| "...and don't stick your finger in a light socket,
| either!"-level warnings.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| We all benefit from those warnings. Who isn't taught to not
| stick their fingers in light sockets?
| bell-cot wrote:
| A human can be old enough that hearing reminders about
| computer data generally consisting of 0's and 1's, or that
| spare diapers are handy when an infant is around, or the
| 'R' on the gearshift lever standing for 'Reverse', or
| {etc.} ...may no longer be a good use of the old human's
| time.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
| uejfiweun wrote:
| I wonder if this sort of thing has any relation to the
| revelations that the US Government is one of the largest buyers
| of private data from apps and such. Would certainly seem to make
| sense.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I was pleased to see that Hallow earned their seal of approval,
| or should I say it evaded their badge of shame? Hallow's a good
| app, professionally developed, and it's marketed tirelessly. I
| had my friend asking me if it was a good app to install. I don't
| know; I use other ones but not Hallow.
|
| I was also pleased to see that "BetterHelp" earned the badge of
| shame. BetterHelp is just on this side of an outright scam. They
| contract with legitimate counselors and therapists and then cram
| their appointment books full of Zoom sessions. They claim that
| you can just send a quick text message to your "therapist" and
| get helped. But people aren't getting helped, they're just
| getting taken for a ride. This aggregation of gig-working
| counselors in an app is a really bad way to conduct this kind of
| business. It may work for a ride-hailing service, but not for
| mental health care. If you're thinking of using "BetterHelp" or
| one of its analogs, please instead consider doing your homework,
| finding a legitimate clinic or therapist who's licensed in your
| state, and do an intake directly with their practice. Many of
| them are now amenable to televideo appointments, and they will
| work with or without your insurance or on a sliding scale. There
| are really good therapists out there who don't need to be found
| on a janky app.
| derefr wrote:
| > If you're thinking of using "BetterHelp" or one of its
| analogs, please instead consider [...a bunch of stuff that
| someone with an executive dysfunction could never manage to do]
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| If somebody's executive dysfunction is preventing them from
| going through the basic steps needed to get help for that
| very thing, then they seriously need to enlist the help of
| either a family member or a professional who can walk them
| through this and ensure that they succeed.
|
| I'm not sure what the implication of this comment was, but
| hopefully it does not imply that "if my executive dysfunction
| prevents me from seeing a real professional then I'll press
| buttons on my phone and see a fake one instead", because
| that's a horrible life choice. Complete inaction would be
| significantly less harmful in a case like that.
| derefr wrote:
| > If somebody's executive dysfunction is preventing them
| from going through the basic steps needed to get help for
| that very thing, then they seriously need to enlist the
| help of either a family member or a professional who can
| walk them through this and ensure that they succeed.
|
| You just said the same thing over again. How do you expect
| them to "enlist the help of a professional"? That's the
| whole (complex, multi-step) goal they're pursuing here!
|
| (And, for many such people, they have no supportive family
| members. They live on their own, do the bare minimum each
| day at work, drag themselves home, microwave a TV dinner,
| and fall asleep. Think of them as "a car that doesn't have
| enough gas in the tank to drive to a gas station.")
|
| > I'm not sure what the implication of this comment was
|
| That lowering the barriers (and thus amount of willpower
| required) to get yourself initially introduced to someone
| who can help you with your problems _even a little_ -- even
| if they 're not going to be able to help you _really well_
| with your problems -- is valuable, because being helped
| even a little now means you have more willpower, that you
| can then use to access a higher-barrier-to-entry solution,
| and so on, in a cycle, incrementally bootstrapping your way
| to fully addressing your problem.
|
| For an analogous situation: group therapy for gender
| dysphoria is hard to access. Web forums full of trans
| people you can talk to are easy to access. Those forums
| aren't structured to help you in the way that group therapy
| is, but it can at least help you overcome a crisis about
| whether you _should acknowledge that you have a need that
| requires addressing in the first place_.
|
| Whether or not any particular _approach_ or _service_ that
| lowers barriers to accessing help, is good at doing that,
| should not be used to condemn the act of lowering barriers
| to accessing help itself. Just because BetterHelp is worse
| than nothing, doesn 't mean that we should accept
| "nothing"; the barriers-to-access are still a _problem_ to
| be _solved_ , and we should still encourage people and
| companies who set out to try to solve it.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| While you're not wrong, in many many states in the US, if not a
| majority of them, finding a therapist that is both a) covered
| by your insurance and b) accepting new patients can be
| extraordinarily difficult if not impossible. At the same time,
| demand for mental health care is steadily rising. That's why
| these apps do so well.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I've found that some of the best therapists don't accept any
| insurance at all, and it'd be foolish to limit one's choices
| to therapists who are covered by conventional health
| insurance.
|
| One very good choice in my area is Catholic Charities. They
| have licensed counselors as well as students under
| supervision, and they charge a mere $35 per session. This is
| a great choice for those who are uninsured or have trouble
| getting in somewhere.
|
| My Christian health sharing ministry shared all costs for a
| Catholic therapist while I was seeing him. Since this is not
| a "health insurance" arrangement, I didn't need to worry
| about whether he was in-network or approved; he just
| submitted his bills to them. My health sharing ministry also
| has a service that "reprices" bills, i.e. renegotiates them
| based on market rates and lops off overcharges that commonly
| occur.
|
| And yeah, "BetterHelp" has this illusion of availability, and
| that can be very alluring to people in distress, and that's a
| dangerous thing. If someone gets mixed up with gig-worker
| counselors, they may find themselves worse off than when they
| started. "Good things come to those who wait", as it were.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| > and it'd be foolish to limit one's choices to therapists
| who are covered by conventional health insurance.
|
| I mean, many people don't have a choice, or it's
| prohibitively expensive. Good for you if you have such
| flexibility.
| [deleted]
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| Of note one of the things not mentioned in "BetterHelp" is that
| the ability to _not_ text your therapist at all hours of the
| day is actually very important for mental health. The therapist
| is a tool, not a crutch, and shouldn 't be treated like a
| coping mechanism. A therapist is supposed to help teach and
| guide someone to develop healthier behavior patterns, and time
| away from the therapist to implement those patterns by onesself
| is very important.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| BetterHelp is terrible. The dehumanizing, exhausting, money-
| seizing experience of trying to engage with their app was a net
| negative for my mental health when I tried to use it. They've
| taken the antipatterns used to extract effective monetization
| in social media apps and mobile games and applied them to
| people seeking help with their mental health. I've noticed they
| ingratiate themselves with corporate health benefits providers,
| etc too. I firmly believe someone in severe need of assistance
| would only feel worse after seeking help from that app.
|
| I got as far as the conversation with my "onboarding coach",
| the licensed therapist who was supposed to find me a "good
| match" - and it became apparent she was either a bot or
| attending so little to the conversation she was unable to
| recognize information my earlier messages and apply it to later
| messages - it was like an automated customer support/service
| flow, but asking me highly personal questions about my mental
| health.
|
| There's plenty of mediocre apps out there, but nothing has
| produced a simmering rage in me like the knowledge that
| BetterHelp exists and takes advantage of people who need help
| every day so their leadership and investors can try to get
| rich.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Oh, I just remembered: the onboarding "chat" was specifically
| advertised as a free, no committal part of the introduction
| process. After I declined to go further, they started billing
| me monthly for a subscription to therapy services I had never
| engaged to use, and I had to email them repeatedly to get the
| subscription stopped and the charges refunded.
|
| Billed by the month for exchanging a dozen or so messages
| with a fake therapist. If you're a company leader and get the
| opportunity to include BetterHelp in your benefits package -
| don't.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| It is disheartening (although not that surprising) to see how
| many companies are "double dipping" here. For example Pray.com
| seems particularly bad. It has a $7.99 a month subscription, but
| still track and sell your information just like a "free" app
| would.
|
| Ordinarily I feel much better about an app which has a clearly
| defined, above-board, method of funding itself. (The old "if you
| aren't paying for the product, you are the product" thing). But
| this is a good reminder that it is "if" not "if and only if".
| adamwong246 wrote:
| I hate to be the one who has to say the quiet part out loud but-
| what in the world are we doing to ourselves? Were these apps FOSS
| I might not be so alarmed but how do you think these companies
| are paying the bills? With good karma? No, YOUR DATA. And not
| just your GPS location or your favorite brand of ice cream, but
| your most vulnerable and intimate of thoughts. Now, shudder at
| the thought that not only can these apps leech your data, they
| can now poke back, manipulating the user to god know's what. And
| of course, your health insurance provider is now peering into
| your soul. They'll surely be happy to mandate that you can no
| longer attend "human" therapy.
| aio2 wrote:
| Some people are stupid.
| xctr94 wrote:
| You're sadly right, but many of these apps have a freemium
| model.
|
| BetterHelp isn't free at all, it's actually fairly expensive;
| so one could argue they should not need to phone in your data
| to so many third-parties.
|
| I pay my therapist for their services, assuming there's a high
| degree of confidentiality in our relationship. These apps, even
| paid ones, behave like any other app in terms of data sharing.
|
| And not to mention that some of this information might be
| covered by HIPAA?
| hospitalJail wrote:
| >Mozilla's Minimum Security Standards, like requiring strong
| passwords
|
| What if I don't want a strong password? What if I have 0 care for
| my account because I never wanted an account to being with but
| was strong armed into giving away my email, phone number, and now
| need a unique password because I'm worried someone is going to
| see that I 'prayed' 100 times.
|
| I loved that reddit didn't need an email, and I could use a
| generic password. If I lost my reddit account, no big deal at
| all. For my personal/PR reddit account, email and strong
| password, great.
| bee_rider wrote:
| The list is about privacy and security. If you don't think your
| prayers are private or need security, then don't worry about
| the list I guess.
| BoxFour wrote:
| There are substantial incentives for practically everyone to
| adopt strong passwords, including yourself, even if it's just a
| temporary account.
|
| The platform actually desires you to possess a robust password,
| given that hijacked accounts contribute to spam so heavily.
|
| Many people often use the same "basic passwords" on multiple
| websites. If one of your temporary accounts gets hijacked all
| your other "temporary" (in quotes because some of them might
| actually be important) accounts, including older ones you might
| have forgotten about, could be exposed.
|
| Essentially, there are hardly any valid grounds for any
| platform to permit the utilization of frail passwords,
| especially considering how effortless it is to create distinct
| passwords using a password manager nowadays.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > Essentially, there are hardly any valid grounds for any
| platform to permit the utilization of frail passwords,
| especially considering how effortless it is to create
| distinct passwords using a password manager nowadays.
|
| One was just given: Users don't really care to create an
| account to begin with, so they provide throwaway email
| accounts and low security passwords. If the apps required
| longer, safer passwords, then they risk losing signups.
|
| If I get a message complaining about my password being to
| weak, from a service I might not care that much about, then
| there's an increased risk that I opt to not create an
| account.
|
| Apple solution is actually pretty good, it allows me to
| quickly create an account to try out an app or service. If I
| don't like it, meeh, they only have the Apple login info and
| nothing else.
| BoxFour wrote:
| It's clear that platforms don't view it as a major obstacle
| to registrations. Or, at least, not a hassle that weighs
| significantly against the issue of unauthorized access to
| accounts and, to put it bluntly, articles of this nature
| that tarnish their reputation.
|
| Considering the ongoing trend towards the use of robust
| passwords rather than their abandonment, we can infer that
| either the impact on meaningful engagement hasn't been
| substantial or the decrease in signups is deemed
| overwhelmingly worthwhile in order to combat spam and other
| unfavorable aspects.
|
| So, I stand by what I said.
| SanderNL wrote:
| I think creating a strong password and offering it once is
| better or am I overlooking something?
| BoxFour wrote:
| If you suggest making one powerful password and using it
| everywhere, then as soon as one website reveals your
| password all your accounts have been exposed. The usual
| practice is to remember one strong phrase and never use it
| for anything except your password keeper.
| SanderNL wrote:
| I mean if the website in questions generates a password
| and shows it (and then lets it go of course). This is
| used to show cert private keys for example. I can see it
| work with passwords.
|
| I don't care about passwords. I just want a "key" and
| I'll store it.
| BoxFour wrote:
| Seems reasonable.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Offering it once? Offering what?
| SanderNL wrote:
| The password, at account creation. Here is your password:
| ......
|
| I have seen it being used for cert keys.
| [deleted]
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| Why do I need a password at all for 99.99% of apps or websites?
|
| If I lose a password, what do I almost always have to do?
|
| 1. Email account recovery link.
|
| 2. Input auth code sent from text message or authenticator app.
| [Optional.]
|
| 3. Make new random password I'm going to forget or lose.
|
| Why bother with this? If email is the reset mechanism why does
| the industry care so much about getting passwords from users?
|
| 1. Email sign-in link.
|
| 2. Input auth code. [Optional]
|
| Everything other part of this whole chain gets simpler. No more
| password strength checking code. No multiple auth paths. No
| issues with anything. Just a single email with _at most_ two
| links, one for browser sign in, one for app sign in.
|
| If you really, really, really need to you can add one or two QR
| codes so these hypothetical people that don't have email on
| their phone can sign into the app.
| dolmen wrote:
| > Why bother with this? If email is the reset mechanism why
| does the industry care so much about getting passwords from
| users?
|
| Because you may not have access to your e-mail from the
| device where you want to use that service.
|
| For example, I don't need to have access to my e-mails from
| my tablet as I'm always reading/writing them on a computer
| with a keyboard. So I don't want to setup access to my
| e-mails from my tablet, as it reduces the risks of a bad app
| leaking them or leaking my credentials.
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| I covered this in my comment with QR login codes.
|
| Plus, if you really want to, you could also have a one-time
| use 6 digit code for login also sent in the email and it
| would be better for the majority of people that do not use
| a password manager.
|
| Or if you really, really, really must have your passwords
| then please invert the default to where login via link is
| the primary mechanism and passwords are optional on a per-
| account basis.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| I think they do this in Europe. I believe that there is still
| loss of some security. With email only you could loss all
| your accounts.
|
| So, while I mostly agree overall, especially with respect to
| silly little things that aren't likely to hurt anyone, I do
| think there's a compelling case for password and 2factor.
|
| As it stands, you have to know something and have something.
| Making it so you only need to have something is better than
| making it so they only know something.
|
| However, that second factor seems like a good idea; though I
| will admit that it's probably unlikely that a thief would
| have the motivation to crack your phone to get your email; is
| this even easily achievable?
| mehlmao wrote:
| The information stored in therapy or prayer apps is much more
| sensitive than a disposable Reddit account.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Passwords are not about hiding data.
|
| Passwords are legally the only thing that can't be forced out
| of you, to make you login into a computer system against your
| interests.
|
| Passwords are the core foundation of keeping your internet life
| separate from your personal/private life. Biometric and
| hardware authentication make both your real life
| name/address/life history and your computer ID the same thing.
|
| I didn't sign up for American globalism, and I don't want my
| iPhone's authentication systems to force me into being
| accountable to Twitter/Apple/Google credit score. If the
| Australian government forced this stuff on me and kept it
| within Australia, that's different.
|
| IBM is moving to a "passwordless trend" on their server
| authentication, in favour of biometrics and iPhone auth. I bet
| my bottom dollar that will get spread everywhere in the
| universe, regardless of our protestations.
|
| It's not agreeable. inb4 people say "it's always been that
| way/they could always do that". The last shred of internet-
| identity liberty is going to be dead in a new york minute.
|
| Your religious identity, and your prayer life is going to get
| owned if you let go of passwords and ambigious identities.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > Passwords are legally the only thing that can't be forced
| out of you, to make you login into a computer system against
| your interests.
|
| Not in the UK, since RIPA.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Po.
| ..
|
| It's been used:
|
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7102180.stm
| barrysteve wrote:
| Guess my comment is surplus-to-requirements. Waves of
| 'sadge' aside..
|
| Non-conformists are necessary to keep society progressing.
| The computing revolution is becoming oppressive. I guess
| the future rests with Men who have the willpower to keep
| valuable ideas out of the system long enough to for them to
| bear fruit.
|
| Isaac Newton studied in private for 15yrs.. He also
| privately denied the Trinity and refused to take Holy
| Orders from the CofE. It's very questionable if that is at
| all possible to do again under constant 'supervision', when
| a fundamental difference between authority and truth
| happens again.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| > and refused to take Holy Orders from the CofE.
|
| Did the CofE try to compel him to take Holy Orders?
|
| As far as I'm aware, Holy Orders in the CofE amounts to
| becoming a priest (since the CofE has no monks or
| friars). I thought you had to ask for that, and then
| prove your worthiness.
|
| Is there some order in the CofE that the church can ask
| you to join, when you don't want to?
|
| [Edit] He was a Rosicrucian; I'm not really sure what
| that means in theological terms, but I'm pretty sure it
| doesn't align with any conventional doxy.
| shlubbert wrote:
| You know, it's not a requirement to be contrarian about
| _everything_. Encouraging people to use stronger passwords (and
| password managers to handle them) is pretty much universally a
| good thing.
| yreg wrote:
| I don't understand what they mean by strong passwords.
|
| From the methodology:
|
| > If the product uses passwords or other means of security for
| remote authentication, it must require that strong passwords
| are used, including having password strength requirements.
|
| What are 'strength requirements'? Is minimum-length-of-X a
| strength requirement? Apparently not, since Abide failed for
| the following:
|
| > Strong password: No. Allowed us to register with '11111111'.
| They require 8 characters minimum, but do not check if a
| password is strong.
|
| ----
|
| I don't believe in the meme of l337speak pa55W0rd$. I think
| sufficiently long pass phrases are fine.
| thfuran wrote:
| 'Sufficiently long' is doing a lot of work though. 1$a}F is a
| five symbol password and so is ASufficientlyLongPassPhrase.
| Unless an attacker has some specific knowledge about how the
| passwords were generated, the latter is significantly more
| secure since the dictionary size for the symbols (English
| words, though none especially uncommon so top 5k or so should
| suffice) is significantly larger than that of the former
| (standard keyboard characters). But it's not nearly as secure
| as a password in the style of the former with the same number
| of characters as that passphrase.
| cnity wrote:
| Passwords tend not to be brute forced one character at a
| time, but by combinations of common password lists and
| rainbow tables. The base unit is not character in these cases
| but entries in the tables.
|
| Therefore, a password like "EstablishedCousins" is
| significantly less secure than "bR^4outc0m3" despite
| containing more characters.
|
| Edit: I actually mean dictionary attack, not rainbow tables,
| but my point still stands.
|
| Edit 2: In fact, the password from the example ("11111111")
| appears in the 71st line of this password dictionary:
| https://raw.githubusercontent.com/duyet/bruteforce-
| database/...
| yreg wrote:
| > Therefore, a password like "EstablishedCousins" is
| significantly less secure than "bR^4outc0m3" despite
| containing more characters.
|
| And "awn-handsome-dolce-esophagi-radix-lawgiver" is more
| secure than "Hunter2"...
|
| My point is that their methodology doesn't cover what do
| they mean by strong passwords. A sufficiently long (and
| sufficiently random - but how do you check for that?) pass
| phrase is strong in my view.
| [deleted]
| asynchronous wrote:
| 8 characters isn't exactly long but I agree overall length is
| the main way to make a password stronger. Cue the xkcd comic.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| One very, very basic measurement / thought experiment for
| holiness in Christian circles to think about is the following:
|
| Imagine Christianity is illegal. Imagine the government decides
| to prosecute you, but hires the weakest, most incompetent,
| repeatedly-almost-disbarred prosecutor there is. You meanwhile
| get access to David Boies. Would the government have enough
| evidence for even the worst prosecutor to prove you are a
| Christian?
|
| Well, if not... it's like Mozilla doesn't realize that
| religious people don't mind prayer being a fairly public act as
| long as people against them aren't preying on them. Catholics
| have Mass every Sunday; Muslims have their five-times-daily
| prayers and often wear clothing that clearly identifies them as
| such; and so forth.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Your thought problem isnt productive because it creates a
| fake scenario that creates validity to an otherwise invalid
| problem.
|
| Okay, if Christianity is illegal you'd want your Christian
| apps to be secure.
|
| If Christianity isnt illegal, you don't care.
|
| You'd want privacy if you were using the silk road, but you
| are probably okay with your alarm clock app collecting the
| number of times you hit snooze. You'd also be okay if the
| US/Chinese government knew that you hit snooze.
| villagevanguard wrote:
| The person you're replying to is using the hypothetical to
| illustrate why religious people don't care if prayer app
| data is made public. He is not trying to tease out the
| hypothetical any further than that.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Prayer can be both public and private. It's more than just
| the danger of being exposed as a Christian to a regime that
| is hostile to it and persecuting Christians. The seal of
| confession is an obvious good example of why privacy is
| important. Everyone standing in line to the confessional
| knows you're Catholic and that you're going to confession.
| They _don 't_ know what you're confessing to.
|
| Obviously, you shouldn't be storing confessions in an app,
| but the principle is that privacy goes beyond the danger of
| persecution.
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| Christians already act like Christianity is illegal. The
| persecution complex is like one of the main pillars of their
| religion.
| villagevanguard wrote:
| Ironically, you're being gratuitously hostile in your
| accusation that they are not actually persecuted.
| jacobwilliamroy wrote:
| I live in the southern U.S. so, no they're not being
| persecuted here. They still like to act like it though.
| It's annoying.
| iinnPP wrote:
| Canada recently funded a mental health website which suffers from
| many of the same problems mentioned in the article. It's under
| review with OPC currently, but additional reports always help.
|
| This website is advertised by our PM to children.
|
| https://www.wellnesstogether.ca
| bloopernova wrote:
| Nice to see that the app I use, Finch, is rated fairly well.
|
| I'm going to assume sharing an invite code would go badly, but if
| you want mine so you get a mini pet in the app, please email me
| at the address in my profile. The benefit I get is not monetary:
| if I get a few signups I get a mini pet myself.
|
| Finch is one of the few self help apps that really seems to help
| me. I was slipping further into deep depression but Finch has
| helped me to have a few good days, and I've showered and changed
| my clothes every day for 2 weeks. I recommend it!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-21 23:03 UTC)