Alex Flores
My feedback
15 results found
-
373 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
7 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment This is one of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned explanations of why expressing ethnic preferences, when done respectfully, is not the same as racism. The key difference lies in intent, context, and how those preferences are communicated.
People have the right to personal autonomy in their relationships. Just like someone might be drawn to certain personalities, lifestyles, or physical traits, being attracted to a specific cultural background or ethnicity is a natural part of human connection. For many, culture and identity aren’t superficial—they’re central to how they form meaningful relationships.
Racism is about systemic exclusion, prejudice, or dehumanization. Simply preferring to connect with someone who shares your lived experiences, language, or heritage is not that. It becomes an issue only when those preferences are used to demean or diminish others, which isn’t the case here.
Removing the ability to express ethnicity would actually erase identity, not promote inclusivity. It would strip people of the choice to show pride in their background or seek out others who understand their culture.
Inclusivity should not mean forced sameness. It should mean making space for diverse preferences, backgrounds, and ways of connecting. This post captures that nuance perfectly. I hope Grindr continues to support features that let people connect authentically, without being shamed for who they are or who they’re drawn to.
-
7 votes
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Hi Sarah, I completely understand where your concern is coming from. Discrimination of any kind — racial, sexual, or otherwise — is a serious issue that should never be tolerated on or off the app. That said, I’d like to offer another perspective on why keeping the option (not the requirement) to list nationality or ethnicity can actually support inclusion and autonomy when used correctly.
First, it’s important to distinguish between preference and prejudice. When someone voluntarily chooses to share their nationality or cultural background, they are not promoting exclusion — they’re expressing a core part of their identity. For many, especially in immigrant or diaspora communities, culture, language, and heritage play a huge role in how they connect with others romantically or sexually.
Second, removing the option entirely can unintentionally erase cultural visibility. It can be empowering for users to be seen and to find others who share or appreciate their background. The key lies in how the feature is used — not in its existence. If abuse happens, that’s a moderation and education issue, not necessarily a reason to eliminate a valid form of self-expression.
Lastly, in today’s evolving digital landscape, personalization is not inherently discriminatory. Apps like Grindr should focus on providing tools for users to navigate their preferences respectfully, not forcing a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead of removing the option, improving community standards and offering better reporting tools for actual discrimination might be the more effective solution.
-
8 votes
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment From a legal and policy perspective, reintroducing the nationality filter is entirely appropriate when grounded in user choice, transparency, and consent. Filters based on identity or background — when not used to exclude or gatekeep access — are well within the legal bounds of platform customization, and do not violate civil rights or data protection laws like the GDPR or CCPA.
More broadly, we are seeing a cultural recalibration around how identity is approached in public and private institutions. Even large entities such as The Walt Disney Company and segments of government policy are re-evaluating the unintended consequences of overgeneralized inclusivity efforts. The pendulum is shifting toward balance — protecting individual rights while preserving the integrity of community-specific spaces and experiences.
Bringing back the nationality filter would reflect that same balance: it’s not about exclusion, but about meaningful connection. Cultural compatibility, shared language, and heritage all play an important role in authentic interactions — especially on a platform designed to foster personal and intimate relationships. Respecting those preferences is a step toward a more thoughtful and user-centered Grindr experience.
-
1,012 votes
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment From a legal and digital governance standpoint, it’s important to recognize that platforms like Grindr have the right to design and moderate their services in alignment with their original mission and target audience — in this case, a space primarily for gay men. This right is rooted in principles of freedom of association, platform autonomy, and the ability to define a community’s cultural boundaries, especially within private-sector services.
Under U.S. law (including First Amendment interpretations applied to private forums and digital platforms), and similar doctrines in other countries, there is wide latitude for companies to curate user experiences that serve specific communities, provided that their practices do not violate anti-discrimination laws.
Importantly, designing a space for gay men is not inherently discriminatory, so long as the platform does not explicitly ban or harass others based on protected characteristics. There is a difference between targeted design and exclusionary enforcement. Think of women-only gyms, religious dating apps, or veterans-only forums — these exist legally and ethically by focusing on the intended community, while still complying with general access laws.
In the case of Grindr, if the user experience has shifted away from its original purpose — serving same-sex male connections — it is reasonable for the company to consider reinstating filters, category preferences, or clearer community guidelines. These adjustments can help balance inclusivity with intentional design, ensuring the platform feels authentic and respectful for those it was originally built to support.
Preserving safe spaces for minority communities — including gay men — is not about exclusion, but about cultural preservation, emotional safety, and clarity of expectations in digital interactions. Legally, nothing prevents Grindr from setting clearer boundaries through terms of service, filters, and algorithmic tools, which serve to protect both the user experience and the company’s brand mission.
I encourage Grindr to explore ways to honor its core user base while also offering respectful pathways for diverse gender identities — perhaps via subsections of the app, customizable discovery settings, or opt-in communities.
-
474 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment As a user of Grindr and an advocate for digital safety, I must express serious concern over the recent removal of the “block” feature in favor of a “hide” function. This decision introduces not only usability challenges but significant legal liabilities and public safety risks for Grindr as a platform.
The block feature serves as a vital digital boundary. It allows users to prevent any form of communication, viewing, or further contact with individuals they have identified as harassing, threatening, or unsafe. In contrast, the “hide” feature only removes the user from view but does not prevent the hidden party from interacting or re-engaging should they find the user again — especially by creating new accounts or viewing from different devices. This substantially weakens user protections.
From a legal standpoint, removing the block feature may expose Grindr to liability under negligence and duty-of-care doctrines, particularly in jurisdictions with strong data protection and consumer safety laws (such as the EU’s GDPR, California’s CCPA, and various state-level consumer protection laws in the U.S.). By knowingly reducing protective features, Grindr could be seen as failing to uphold its duty to provide a reasonably safe platform, especially for vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, there are potential Title IX, anti-stalking, and anti-harassment implications for users in educational institutions or public entities. If a user reports harassment or stalking and the platform lacks a meaningful way to fully block or prevent further interactions, Grindr may be viewed as complicit through omission.
Also concerning is the potential impact on at-risk LGBTQ+ users in hostile regions. In some parts of the world, Grindr is used with extreme caution, and the block feature is not a convenience but a lifeline. The absence of a strong blocking mechanism could result in doxxing, blackmail, physical harm, or even criminal prosecution. This exposes Grindr to international human rights scrutiny and further reputational damage.
In light of these issues, I strongly urge Grindr to reinstate the block feature immediately, with clear policies for enforcement and user protections. Doing so will:
• Reinforce Grindr’s legal standing and reduce exposure to civil liability.
• Demonstrate a commitment to the safety and well-being of all users.
• Comply with global expectations for digital safety and responsible platform governance.Users should not have to sacrifice their right to personal security in the digital space. Grindr has a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to restore this essential safety tool.
-
3,740 votes
-
3,985 votes
-
9,440 votes
-
1,509 votes
-
826 votes
-
1,617 votes
The decision to remove Grindr’s block feature in favor of a “hide” function presents serious concerns from both a user safety and legal liability standpoint. The block feature wasn’t just a convenience — it was a digital safeguard that allowed individuals to set firm boundaries and protect themselves from harassment, stalking, or harmful behavior.
By contrast, the “hide” option only makes a user invisible on their own screen. It does not stop another person from viewing, messaging, or even tracking them if they create a new profile or use another device. This shift significantly weakens user protection and undermines the app’s responsibility to maintain a safe environment.
Legally, this could expose Grindr to negligence claims and liability under duty-of-care standards, especially in regions with strong privacy and consumer protection laws such as the GDPR in Europe or the CCPA in California. Platforms that knowingly remove critical safety features may be held accountable for harm that results from their inaction.
There are also broader legal implications: in schools and public institutions governed by Title IX, or in situations involving harassment, stalking, or even blackmail, the lack of a true blocking tool puts users at increased risk and leaves Grindr vulnerable to being seen as complicit by omission.
This concern is even more urgent in countries or regions where LGBTQ+ individuals face criminalization or violence. For many users, blocking isn’t optional — it’s a tool for survival. Without it, they are left more exposed to serious threats, which may carry international human rights consequences for Grindr.
Grindr must act quickly to restore the block feature and reinforce user safety. Doing so would protect users, reduce legal risk, and reaffirm the company’s commitment to responsible platform governance.
Every user deserves a secure and respectful digital environment. This starts with giving people the ability to protect themselves.