Jonathan Whalen
My feedback
2 results found
-
4,463 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Hi David,
I think that it's ill-advisable for such a large platform to be putting distasteful labels like "bigot", or "poz" on common folk that use the app in the every day life. While the desire to filter out negative messages, people, and energy is a heard and deeply sympathized struggle, putting unwanted labels and filters on people probably isn't the best way. In fact, there's a good chance it'll take bad situations and make them worse. Furthermore, refusing to disclose your sexual status is indeed a criminalized act in 34 different states. While I understand the frustration involved with desiring an equal level of treatment on the app as anyone else on the app, aiding users in committing illegal acts is unfortunately not how Grindr, their business entities, and their users are going to get there.
-
2 votes
You seem to have some confusion surrounding a couple of different topics that you have commented on here. Let's address them:
* According to the American Academy of HIV Medicine, a non-profit organization in Washington D.C, laws surrounding HIV disclosure were signed in the 80's amid a public scare of transmission. The passing of these laws were founded in Science and Medicine, not religion. I'm totally behind creating a filter to hide certain HIV statuses on the Nearby and Explore screen. But to go as far as saying that someone is a bigot because they don't share the same belief system as you, a belief system in which people of certain sexual statuses have a right to opt-out of necessary disclosure when the matter of facts are that they simply do not is a deeply troubling belief system. I'm sorry you feel that I'm a bigot, but that is a matter of opinion. The matter of facts are above. There are laws surrounding the disclosure of sexual status for a specific type of person for a very good reason. Accountability needs to be held for people who hide an unknown sexual status that is potentially a harmful status, and later go on to unknowingly transmit a condition to an unknowing and innocent person. These are not barbaric or outdated laws, they are still extremely relevant and are founded in promoting the education and advancement of knowing your status via testing, and upholding a firm level of integrity with all of your partners. If we didn't have these laws, then the world would be filled with careless people who parade around refusing to take accountability for their actions, actions that hurt other innocent people. The laws are purposed for holding guilty people accountable. Nobody wants innocent people to be hurt. And I hope you don't either.
Edit: In the community at large, there are differing understandings for "Poz" and "Undetectable." "Poz" being a person who is HIV positive but not currently taking A.R.T. medication, and "Undetectable" being a person who is HIV positive but is currently taking A.R.T. medication to fruitfully extend their life and prevent the spread of the disease to another partner. Saying "Poz folk don't have to disclose their status"(paraphrased) is a deeply troubling idea and belief system. Saying "Undetectable folk don't have to disclose their status"(paraphrased) is a much more complex platform to stand on. Everyone's health situation is different, right? The laws surrounding HIV disclosure don't explicitly provide clarity on folk of Undetectable status because at the time we did not have that kind of medicine available. Does that mean the laws are outdated? Maybe. I think we should leave that research, and those decisions up to the professionals. Doctors and scientists at various research facilities across the globe.(i.e. CDC)No matter what your status is, I believe accountability should be upheld for anyone that blindly causes harm. End of story. How that comes to fruition in state statutes is not going to be an easy path to navigate.