The Dictatorship
Outrage over the Tea dating app highlights the indifference to women’s victimization
Calls to ban Tea Dating Advice, a women-only online dating safety app where users can share stories and information about men they dated, have exploded in recent weeks, driven by fears that reputations, especially of young men, could be damaged by anonymous and potentially false allegations of sexual misconduct. But what does it say about our cultural priorities when the potential for reputational harm against men sparks more outrage than the prevalence of sexual violence against women that online dating has facilitated for years?
Dating apps have long been associated with very real incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence.
The Tea app was designed to help women avoid harmful dating partners, and it recently became the most downloaded free app on Apple’s App Store. With that increase in popularity came a public outcry, especially from among men — who cannot access the app. They argue that Tea encourages doxxing (the unwanted release of personal information) and enables the spread of intentionally false and defamatory stories that can ruin men’s reputations and dating prospects. Criticism of Tea has led to security breaches of the app and doxxing of the women who use it.
The potential for Tea to be misused for reputational damage has led to calls on social media for the app to be shut down entirely. Yet by this logic dating apps themselves shouldn’t exist.
Unwarranted reputational damage associated with the Tea app is largely speculative at this point, but dating apps have long been associated with very real incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence. Studies across the United States and Australia consistently show that approximately 10% of reported incidents of rape are attributable to dating apps. This is likely an underestimate given the propensity for sexual violence to go unreported and the potential for online daters to cause sexual harm unintentionally due to misunderstandings regarding consent.
The majority of victims of sexual violence are women. Despite this knowledge, we seldom hear calls for dating apps to be shut down because of the role they play in sexual harm against women. We’ve certainly not heard any such calls expressed with the fervor that Tea’s opponents have expressed.
We seldom hear calls for dating apps to be shut down because of the role they play in sexual harm against women.
Not only are dating apps still as popular as ever, safety-oriented improvements in their design have been superficial at best. Almost every safety feature built into dating apps is reactive — such as user blocking and reporting features— meaning they require women to first be harmed before the feature can be used. It’s telling that Tea is a standalone app and not a feature built into any existing dating platform where users actually discover and chat with dating partners.
Tea is the first real advancement in online dating safety since…ever. It is certainly the most popular tool for women to avoid, rather than react to, online dating harm.
The Tea app should be controversial, but for very different reasons. Why is Tea the only dating safety technology for women to get mass attention in recent years?
What Tea really symbolizes is that women’s safety in online dating has been severely overlooked — to the point that some women even blame themselves for sexual harassment and apologize to their perpetrator for inconveniencing them in their pursuit of sexual gratification.
Because Tea addresses an underserved safety need doesn’t mean it should be exempt from criticism or that false accusations against men should be an acceptable side effect. Instead of calls to outright ban the app, though, we should be hearing more people asking for — and demanding — better dating safety technologies.
How could an app like Tea continue to provide safety benefits to women while also reducing the potential for false accusations against men? Research in my own lab consistently finds that men actually desire more dating advice and don’t always consciously realize how they could misinterpret sexual interest or engage in a behavior that may actually be unwanted.
Research finds that men don’t always consciously realize how they could misinterpret sexual interest or engage in behavior that may be unwanted.
Could the men being discussed on Tea want, and benefit from, feedback about their dating behavior? How could they be informed of reviews about them in ways that do not put women at risk of retaliation? Such questions are only examples of a much larger conversation that should be happening about how to make online dating safer.
Ultimately, the outcry against Tea is not just about one app. It reflects a larger debate over how we prioritize dating harms and the safety of people most likely to be hurt. What this debate reveals about us is troubling. Calls for Tea’s downfall proclaim that lies that cause reputational harm against men are unacceptable (and rightly so). But sexual harm against women? The silence suggests that we consider that an allowable consequence of dating apps. Because if we took sexual violence against women as seriously as we take the potential hit on men’s reputation, then we’d hear calls to ban the multitude of dating apps filling our phones.
Douglas Zytko
Douglas Zytko is an associate professor in the College of Innovation & Technology at University of Michigan-Flint. His research uses consent as a lens to study and design mitigative solutions for computer-mediated sexual violence, particularly in the context of online dating.
The Dictatorship
US sanctions China-based oil refinery and 40 shippers over Iranian oil
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration is placing economic sanctions on a major China-based oil refinery and roughly 40 shipping companies and tankers involved in transporting Iranian oil.
The move, announced Friday and first reported by The Associated Press, makes good on Trump’s threat to impose secondary sanctions on companies and countries that do business with Iran. It’s also part of his Republican administration’s overall ramped-up campaign to cut off Iran’s key source of revenue — its oil exports.
Concurrently, the U.S. this month imposed a physical blockade on the Strait of Hormuzthe Persian Gulf waterway that is crucial to global energy supplies.
The sanctions, which cut off the companies from the U.S. financial system and penalize anyone who does business with them, come just a few weeks before President Donald Trump and China’s Xi Jinping are due to meet in China.
Included in Friday’s sanctions is Hengli Petrochemical’s facility in the port city of Dalian, which has a processing capacity of roughly 400,000 barrels of crude oil per day, making it one of the biggest independent refineries in China.
The Treasury Department says Hengli has received Iranian crude oil shipments since 2023 and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Iranian military.
The advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran said in February 2025 that Hengli is one of dozens of Chinese purchasers of Iranian oil.
China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, importing 80% to 90% of Iranian oil before the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran broke out, though the crude — transported by a shadow fleet of vessels — often has its origin obscured but arrives in China as oil from countries such as Malaysia. Smaller refineries, known as teapot refineries, typically are the buyers of Iranian oil.
Iran has previously said that its demands for ending the war include the lifting of sanctions.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that his agency “will continue to constrict the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets.”
Earlier this month, Bessent’s department sent a letter to financial institutions in China, Hong Kong, the UAE and Oman threatening to levy secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran and accusing those countries of allowing Iranian illicit activities to flow through their financial institutions.
Bessent said during a White House press briefing on April 15 that the administration has told countries “that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure.”
The sanctions come as the global energy trade is in turmoil as war around the Persian Gulf chokes off oil and natural gas shipments, causing prices to soar.
Treasury has tried to quell the impact of rising oil prices issuing temporary sanctions waivers on Russia oil and a one-time waiver on Iranian oil already at sea.
The AP was making efforts to contact Chinese officials for comment on the sanctions.
China has disagreed with previous U.S. sanctions, but its major companies and banks still comply with U.S. sanctions because they are more exposed to the U.S.-dominated financial system.
After the U.S. earlier this month sanctioned a Chinese refinery accused of buying Iranian oil, Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for China’s embassy in Washington, said the use of the sanctions “undermines international trade order and rules, disrupts normal economic and trade exchanges, and infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies and individuals.”
The Dictatorship
DNC Chair says releasing full 2024 election autopsy would cause ‘navel-gazing’
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin on Saturday defended his decision not to release a full autopsy of the party’s 2024 election losssaying it would “allow people to point fingers, place blame” instead of focusing on this year’s midterm elections.
Speaking to MS NOW’s “The Weekend,” Martin argued that “re-litigating” the 2024 presidential election would distract Democrats from their goal of winning the midterms in November and the 2028 presidential race.
He said Democrats are planning for what they expect to be an “unprecedented assault on our elections” from President Donald Trump, who has already signaled his intention to have federal officials “take over” the elections.
The party’s focus, Martin said, should be on protecting free and fair elections and defeating Republicans and Trump, rather than “engaging in a back and forth” over where it went wrong in 2024.

After then-Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Trump, the DNC ordered a review of where the party fell short. But 10 months later, Martin said the committee would not release the full 2024 autopsya decision that has prompted still-grieving Democrats — including potential 2028 candidates — to prescribe their own solutions to winning over voters.
Martin has repeatedly said that releasing the full report would distract Democrats from taking on Trump. But a growing number of DNC members, Democratic leaders and elected officials are urging him make those findings public, NBC News reported last week.
Martin said Saturday that he wants to keep the party’s focus on “the top lines” and that a 200-page report “allows people to sort of engage in navel-gazing.” He said it would not be helpful for people to harp on “what ifs” over the last election when “none of us have a time machine.”
“I’m not here to protect anyone, right? What I’m here to do is win elections,” he said, adding, “What we’re focusing on right now is the future, not the past.”
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
The Dictatorship
Trump is preparing White House Correspondents’ Dinner jokes — while the real comedians stay home
Breaking with decades of tradition, the White House Correspondents’ Association will not feature a comedian at its annual gala this Saturday night. Instead, “the world’s most celebrated mentalist,” Oz Pearlmanwill entertain the throngs of journos, politicos, corporate overlords and Beltway influencers at the Washington, D.C. Hilton.
Among those luminaries will be President Donald J. Trump who, in his capacity as president, has previously boycotted the event. This time around he’ll deliver an address. The president seems to be feeling confident about his performance, as evidenced by this social media post:
In honor of our Nation’s 250th Birthday, and the fact that these ‘Correspondents’ now admit that I am truly one of the Greatest Presidents in the History of our Country, the G.O.A.T., according to many, it will be my Honor to accept their invitation, and work to make it the GREATEST, HOTTEST, and MOST SPECTACULAR DINNER, OF ANY KIND, EVER!
According to his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, he’s even been working with joke writers to prepare for the occasion.
Last year the WHCA disinvited Amber Ruffin. Many felt the association was caving to pressure from MAGA world.
All of which raises three interrelated questions. First, as the New York Times wonderedwhat could possibly go wrong? Second, will Trump dump on the countless media figures in attendance whom he has already disparaged, threatened, and even sued? And third, why is it that Trump can crack jokes about everything from the pope to unloading sludge on No Kings protestors, but won’t stand for a little comedic ribbing himself?
As for the mentalist, maybe he’ll ask the WHCA’s members to think of a number — like the number of cowardly decisions they’ve made in Trump’s second term. The non-profit, which describes its mission as helping “to facilitate robust coverage of the presidency,” has already sacked a comedian; last year the WHCA disinvited Amber Ruffin. Many felt the association was caving to pressure from MAGA world.
Ruffin certainly thought so. In 2025, she claimed that her dismissal was due to “talking s—” about Trump. “I think it’s a good thing that I lost the gig,” she added, “because I was going to show up there and act all the way out.”
The same strategy of appeasement appears to be in play this year, which would account for the unusual choice of a mentalist as host. The press organization, presumably under pressure from the same White House it’s supposed to cover, has thus gone beyond merely cancelling a comedian — no, this feels like a move to cancel comedy itself at its signature event.

There are a number of important things that happen during the event, including bestowing awards and scholarships to members of the media. And I don’t mean to blow my nose in the First-Amendment-inscribed pocket handkerchiefs that some attendees plan to wear to protest the administration’s anti-free speech policies, but I will say this: If you remove comedy from the WHCA Dinner, that leaves the high-profile entertainment up to a lot of HR-non-compliant afterparties and a mushroom cloud of Trump’s Victory 45-47 cologne.
My point is that the country needs Ruffin’s “acting all the way out.” America needs comedians to poke the powerful right in their grimacing faces. A liberal democracy that permits that sort of subversion makes itself stronger.
Since 1983, the WHCA dinner has deputized assorted clowns to preside over this quirky but vital ritual (only in 1999, 2003 and 2019 did an entertainer other than a comedian perform at the event).
Most WHCA comic headliners have executed their patriotic duties with verve and venom. Liberal or left-leaning stand-ups have lit up Republicans. Stephen Colbert in 2006 reminded America that George W. Bush “stands for things,” but also, “on things like aircraft carriers and rubble, and recently flooded city squares.” In 2017, Hasan Minhaj joked he did “not see” (which he pronounced as “Nazi”) Steve Bannon. A year later, Michelle Wolf referred to an absent Trump as “the one p—- you’re not allowed to grab.”
Since 1983, the WHCA dinner has deputized assorted clowns to preside over this quirky but vital ritual.
But liberal or left-leaning comedians are comedians first. As such, they’ve rarely missed an opportunity to dunk on Democrats as well. In 2013, Conan O’Brien taunted Barack Obama that he only won the presidency because Mitt Romney was his opponent. In 2016, Larry Wilmore made everyone in the room extremely uncomfortable by directing a racial slur at the nation’s first Black commander in chief. Roy Wood Jr. in 2023 reflected upon how odd it was that 80-year-old Joe Biden was begging for four more years of work.
I can think of one way to rebut the charge that WHCA is canceling comedy: Invite a humorist with RedState street cred to entertain at next year’s “nerd prom.” The right-wing comedy sector is booming. Many conservatives are devoted fans of stand-up and they have no shortage of skilled humorists to follow. Instead of a manosphere-adjacent mentalist like Pearlman, the WHCA should have platformed a manosphere-adjacent stand-up like Shane Gillis, Tony HinchcliffeAdam Carolla or countless other seasoned acts that could have easily played the gig.
All of these more conservative comedians, I surmise, are also comedians first. Had the WHCA invited them, Trump and his crew would have invariably been rinsed and roasted, patriotically. No one would have claimed that “liberal bias” motivated the barbs — have you ever listened to Hinchcliffe? Had WHCA simply done that, a weird and sloppy democratic tradition would have persevered. Life would go on, as it always does.
So would Trump’s wars, deportations, voter suppression schemes, corruption, lies and so forth. But the jokes would linger like funny prayers to ironic gods, permitting us to at least collectively recognize how absurd our predicament has become.
Jacques Berlinerblau is a professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship8 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?









