Lulu Application sued, outlawed in Brazil: privacy or censorship?

The Press reports that a Brazilian man sued Lulu and Facebook for defamation and breach of intimacy, conveniently omitting that TubbyApp, the Lulu Version for Men to rate women was already outlawed by a Brazilian court.

Women always tend to be more equally protected under the law, then men.

The male version of the Application (TubbyApp), was outlawed by the judge of the Special Court for Crimes against Women in Belo Horizonte   MSN

May I mention that there are no special courts for Crimes against men, for prison rape, Lorena Bobbitt dick slicing, false rape accusation victims,  birth control fraud, cuckolding child support fraud, or protection about indentured slavery of life time alimony enforced by debtor’s prison

who decided that the App Store and Google Play must not offer the application for download in Brazil, and who disallowed the social network Facebook to connect data of their users to the application, under punishment of BRL 10 000 per day for disobeying that order.MSN

The Brazilian constitution in article 5 IV allows freedom of expression but explicitly prohibits anonymity.MSN

The Brazilian constitution protects the inviolability of the image, honor, reputation and privacy of people and gives the right to sue for moral and material damages, when violated.

Human-Stupidity finds it offensive that one may not tell the truth while protected against retaliation, and understands that such laws hamper freedom of press and expression. Photographers can get sued for showing a person in unflattering poses while in public, and Google got sued by a man who vomited while Google Street view drove by.

On the other hand, we understand concerns about privacy. Imagine a happily married man like Tiger Woods would read 20 ratings on Lulu, about his sexual performance.

This breach of privacy would be very detrimental, and we actually would suggest the press to return to the old ethics code that kept John F. Kennedy’s trysts with Marilyn Monroe and other women out of public sight.  The opposite is happening, as Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Jörg Kachelmann found out, when falsely accused of rape. 

I believe Germany gives such privacy rights to individuals but exempts public persons like politicians from such legal protection.


But it seems that people get only rated when they register for Lulu, thus consenting to the ratings? In that case the Brazilian case has no merit and it would be disgusting that a Brazilian judge outlawed the male version that rates consenting women.

According to its website, Lulu is described as "a private network for girls to express and share their opinions openly and honestly." Men can download the app but can only view their stats or add photos of themselves. The website also has a function for men to remove their profiles.  Telegraph

Oh, it seems to be an opt-out process. That would not be good for Tiger Woods. I believe the correct way would be to contact men who get rated and give them one week to opt out before their ratings get published.

"Despite the lack of specific legislation on this subject, our Brazilian constitution is quite accurate when mentioning the protection of intimacy, private life, honor and image, and forbidding anonymity," he said.

Scolari is suing Luluvise, the company behind Lulu, for 27,120 Brazilian real, or about $11,580. He has promised to donate the damages to a support group for children with cancer, according to The Telegraph.

Read more: NY Daily News


A mobile phone app called Lulu which allows women to anonymously rate men is being sued by one angry Romeo.

The app for women has spread through Brazil like wildfire since being launched only two weeks ago and is more popular than Facebook. But not everybody is happy with Lulu, including one man who is taking legal action – despite scoring a respectable 7.7 out of 10.

Fellippo de Almeida Scolari, 28, went to the lawyers in Brazil after finding his profile picture stamped with a series of derogatory hash tags such as #CheaperThanBreadandButter and #ShouldComeWithaWarning.

Lulu takes the friends on users Facebook page and invites women to pass judgment. It describes itself as "a private network for girls to express and share their opinions openly and honestly".

Scolari found out about the less than flattering comments about him only after his girlfriend was shown the app by a friend.

He said: "I was disgusted because I didn’t authorise my details to be used by this app. I have a girlfriend and she learned about it because a mutual friend sent it to us. She was annoyed because she didn’t like seeing this kind of thing written about me."

Scolari claimed that Lulu violates Brazilian constitutional law by allowing people to post anonymous and disparaging comments. He is claiming the equivalent of £7,000 in damages.

He said: "It’s a question of privacy on the internet. I want to see the app no longer allowing people to comment anonymously and Facebook no longer giving personal details to any app."    ibtimes

Lulu may be legal, but courts may order to identify the anonymous female raters, exposing them to law suits.  Lulu está na lei, mas Justiça pode violar anonimato, diz advogado


  • Lulu – Review Guys, Violate Privacy, Have a Cosmopolitan
  • Terms & Conditions: Lulu hangs guys by their data | Digital Trends

    As another example how PC killed a very useful and necessary app, check the Ghetto Tracker app #2 which warns people not to get maimed, hurt and killed by unwisely entering bad neighborhoods.

    Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

    Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

    5 thoughts on “Lulu Application sued, outlawed in Brazil: privacy or censorship?”

    1. Technically, you don’t need to put in “equally” either.

      If always, then tend is redundant.

      Women tend to be more protected under the law than men.


      The law always protects women more than men.

      There. Done.

      1. No, “equally” should not be omitted, as it sarcastically refers to the equal protection that feminism supposedly is about.

        Perhaps it should have gotten a pair of quotation marks: Women tend to be more “equally protected” under the law than men.

        I understand the sentence as referring to the saying “Some people are more equal than others.”

        Western society supposedly treats men and women equally, however, women very often get (unneeded, unfair, …) special treatment, making so-called “equality” a joke.

        Therefore, in these special treatment cases, women are more “equal” than men.

    2. “Women always tend to be more equally protected under the law, then men.”

      than men. And there is no comma needed.

      Thank you.

    Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.