Got kicked out of uni and had the cops called for a social media website I made

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.