Got kicked out of uni and had the cops called for a social media website I made
A student at IIT Delhi built a campus-wide gossip site by scraping the university directory, auto‑creating profiles for all students and allowing anonymous comments and tags about who they had dated or “hated,” then was threatened with disciplinary action and police involvement. Commenters largely condemn the project as a harassment platform that violated privacy, consent, and (in India) defamation and IT laws, while also criticizing the student’s immaturity and lack of empathy or accountability. A smaller minority argue that the university’s heavy‑handed response was authoritarian and that youthful experimentation should be handled as a learning moment rather than escalated to police.
Nature of the site & its impact
- Many characterize the site as a “harassment/gossip factory” or campus JuicyCampus/YikYak clone: auto‑generated profiles for every student, anonymous comments, and tagging fields like “has dated,” “crushing on,” and “haters.”
- Several point out that even if most content was “fun” or lighthearted, the design strongly incentivizes rumor, bullying, and reputational harm, especially in a high‑pressure campus with existing mental‑health and suicide concerns.
- Some argue there is real demand for this type of product and that many students appeared to enjoy it; others note usage often stems from fear (checking what’s said about you), not genuine support.
Consent, privacy, and legality (India context)
- Strong criticism of scraping an internal directory, auto‑creating profiles without consent, and emailing students about tags/comments they never opted into.
- Multiple comments enumerate likely violations under Indian IT law and the Penal Code: unauthorized data use, defamation, impersonation, and facilitating stalking/harassment.
- A recurring point: once harmful content is known and not promptly addressed, the operator risks legal liability; “just report and I’ll delete” is seen as insufficient.
Responsibility, empathy, and maturity
- Many focus less on the code and more on the author’s attitude: pride in virality, dismissiveness toward people hurt, and hostile replies (e.g., sexual insults) when asked to remove content.
- A large number of commenters describe this as narcissistic, lacking empathy, and a massive self‑own that will damage long‑term reputation.
- A minority defend the author as a young, experimenting student who should be taught, not destroyed, and feel the backlash is excessively moralistic.
University and police response
- Widely viewed as heavy‑handed and “authoritarian”: phone confiscation, physical roughness, threats of expulsion, and invoking police.
- Some argue this is predictable in the Indian public‑university context, where administrators are seen as quasi‑guardians held socially responsible for cyberbullying among their students.
- Consensus: both sides behaved badly; the site was irresponsible, and the administration escalated inappropriately.
Hacker ethos vs. modern norms
- Split between those who see this as classic “hacker” boundary‑pushing (akin to early Facebook) and those who say that post‑social‑media, we know the harms and can’t excuse such experiments.
- Several stress that “hacker spirit” is about exploration, not enabling others to harm classmates.
Technical merit and originality
- Most consider the implementation trivial and unoriginal (basic social app, concept already repeated for decades).
- The author’s claims of uniqueness and “200 IQ” are widely mocked; critics say the real challenge is ethical design and moderation, not code.