[batmaniam]

Isn't this basically Peeple except gender locked to women? Peeple failed because they couldn't eliminate bias and gossip against anyone. If someone was jealous of another, for example, that person could just write false slander and claim it was real with no evidence. That would have affected the victim for jobs, dates, etc. So it was laughed at by VCs and everyone online and it shut down.

How is Tea even legal? Isn't this just a legal libel timebomb waiting to happen?

[tptacek]

Defamation (libel and slander) consists of false statements (or direct implications) of fact. Actionable defamation consists either of those false claims that cause quantifiable damages, or that claim things that are per se considered damaging --- a specific and limited list.

"This guy is a creeper and treats romantic partners terribly" is pure opinion, and cannot be defamatory. The (rare) kinds of opinion statements that can be defamatory generally take the form of "I believe (subjective thing) about this person because I observed (objective thing)", where "(objective thing)" is itself false. "The vibe I get about this person is that they hunt humans for sport" does not take that form and is almost certainly not defamatory.

Under US law, providers are generally not liable for defamatory content generated by users unless you can show they materially encouraged that content in its specifics, which is a high bar app providers are unlikely to clear.

[gizmo686]

> or that claim things that are per se considered damaging --- a specific and limited list

Standard disclaimer that law varies by jurisdiction. However, that limited list typically includes claims that the person committed a crime. Many juristictions also include accusing someone of having a contagious disease, engaging in sexual misconduct, or engaging is misconduct that is inconsistent with proper conduct in their profession.

In other words, the types of things I would expect people to be talking about on tea overlap heavily with defamation per-se.

If the users were careful to make all of their statements opinions, that defense would work. However, I doubt that is the case. Instead, I expect many users to include example of what their ex did that led to their opinion; which gets directly into the realm of factual statements.

The provider protections are real, and likely protect the app from direct lawsuits (or, at least from losing them), but do not protect the app's users. A few news stories about an abusive ex going after their former partner based on what they posted in the app could be enough to scare users away. You don't even need to win the lawsuit if your goal is to harass the other person.

[tptacek]

It does, but those bars to defamation claims are based on the US Constitution more than they are on state law. I think another way to put that is that I gave the maximally generous interpretation to the plaintiff there.

[krisoft]

> "This guy is a creeper and treats romantic partners terribly" is pure opinion, and cannot be defamatory.

That is true. But i think untrained and emotionaly involved individuals will have trouble navigating the boundaries of defamation. Instead of writing opinions like “treats romantic partners terribly” they will write statements purporting facts like “this creep lured me to his house, raped me, and gave me the clap”. This is not an opinion but three individually provable statements of facts. Plus the third would be considered “defamation per se” in most jurisdictions if it were false. (The false allegation that someone has an STD is considered so loathsome that in most places the person wouldn’t need to prove damages.)

Unles specifically coached people would write this second way. Both because it is rethoricaly more powerfull, but also because they would report on their own personal experience. To be able to say “treats romantic partners terribly” they would need to canvas multiple former partners and then put their emotionaly charged stories into calm terms. That requires a lot of work. While the kind of message i’m suggesting only requires the commenter to report things they personaly know about. And in an emotionaly charged situation, like a breakup, people would be more likely to exagarate in their descriptions, making defamatory claims more likely.

> Under US law, providers are generally not liable for defamatory content generated by users…

This is true, and i believe this is the real key. Even if the commenters would be liable, the site themselves would be unlikely to become liable with them.

[tptacek]

Just keep in mind there are two very high bars you need to clear to come out ahead on a defamation action:

1. To prove that the factual claims made by the defendant were false, and that the defendant should have known they were false

2. That you suffered actual damages from those claims

Very hard to make happen on a dating app.

[swores]

Worth pointing out that you're talking purely from a US point of view, and different countries treat slander and libel differently.

For example in the US, to sue for defamation you need to prove something is false, whereas in the UK the defendant has to prove that what they said or wrote (and are being sued for) is true.

(I've no idea whether this app had any non-US use, but thought worth adding this comment regardless since it's a general point about defamation law and being discussed on a site with a big international audience.)

[swat535]

I wonder if you would make the same comment if the genders were reversed.

"Cofee App" for males only, that allows them to post pictures of woman they have dated, rate them and include green/red flags.

"She is not good enough in bed", "She is too fat", "She has a high body count",..

Arguing over the legal definition of the word "Defamation" is missing the forest for the trees.

[codedokode]

> "She is too fat"

Do modern men need an app to understand this?

[akerl_]

A general plug that if you read this comment and thought “damn, 1st amendment law sounds complex and interesting”, you may want to check out https://www.serioustrouble.show/ , a podcast about legal news with a recurring focus on 1st amendment law and cases

[dyauspitr]

But you can ruin a person’s life on a whim. That cannot be allowed.

[akerl_]

Can you cite that? Because in the US I’m not aware of a law against sharing negative opinions about someone.

[danparsonson]

Right - that's basically the business model of Twitter these days

[duxup]

This also seems like an app ripe for actual creep / abusers to follow / manipulate.

The claim that it provides safety really is just that, an empty claim.

[dabockster]

The fact that it verifies by ID scan is also not safe at all for a million different reasons.

A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. The fee filters out 99% of the trolls out there (who wants to pay to troll) and also gives the app/website admins access to billing info - name, mailing address, phone number, etc - without the need for a full ID scan. So the tiny amount of trolls that do pay to troll would have to enter accurate deanonymizing payment information to even get on the system in the first place.

And it can be made so only admins know peoples' true identities. For the user facing parts, pseudonyms and usernames are still very possible - again so long as everyone understands up front that such a platform would ultimately not be anonymous on the back end.

But oh no, that won't hypergrow the company and dominate the internet! Think of all the people in India and China you're missing out on! /sarcasm

[FiniteIntegral]

I think you underestimate the willingness of people to pay to troll, it may filter out people but an app that was (in theory) meant to be secure shouldn't think of a problem as filtering rather than securing. Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins. I think an app like this was doomed from the start and 4chan simply pulled the plug on an already leaking bathtub.

[msgodel]

I've thought about buying throwaway phone numbers just to troll linkedin. I'd be surprised if people weren't finding ways to get accounts on apps like this for trolling.

The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money.

[dabockster]

> The only reason I haven't is because it feels like LinkedIn may have already jumped the shark and I wouldn't really get the value for my money.

You'd get the lulz. That in itself can be mentally satisfying.

Tbh I've thought about trolling LinkedIn myself. It honestly needs to die.

[dabockster]

> Admins knowing peoples' identities simply moves the weakest link in the chain to the admins.

And now you have a better chance at pointing a finger at someone, at the very least. And the thought of that finger pointing would be enough to keep an admin on top of things.

[ada1981]

Are there any premium troll Sites?

[fooker]

Twitter with check mark

[ada1981]

Great point.

[konart]

>A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something.

That's Pure. And they have more than 5$ I believe.

[jandrese]

> A better way would have been to charge a small subscription fee - like $2/month or something. The fee filters out 99% of the trolls out there

Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith.

[kryogen1c]

> Have you seen who has the blue checkmarks on Twitter/X now? I'll give you a hint, it's not the people who argue in good faith.

So the same as it was before you could buy them?

[dabockster]

Everything is still up to whoever is running the platform. I'm just saying that, from an web admin perspective, that $2/month works. And if it doesn't, you have their billing info to track trolls down irl if necessary.

[rKarpinski]

Whats wrong with verifying the ID?

The issue is they decided to roll their own extremely questionable service and insecurely store sensitive images in a public bucket

Multiple SAAS vendors provide ID verification for ~$2/each. They should have eaten that fee when it was small and then found a way pass it onto the users later

[dabockster]

> Whats wrong with verifying the ID?

- IDs usually contain enough information to totally steal a person's identity (beyond just their name and mailing address).

- IDs usually have secret security mechanisms beyond what's publicly known for a government to verify if an ID is real or not.

- 3rd party business systems can only verify the publicly known security stuff. And because that security stuff is public, it can get faked easily.

- IDs are super easy to fake.

- The only entity that can totally verify an ID is a government, because you'd have to verify the secret security mechanisms as well.

And there's a million reasons why you wouldn't necessarily want a government to verify an ID for a private business transaction.

[raydev]

> who wants to pay to troll

You've never visited X (formerly known as Twitter)?

[dylan604]

you act like it's impossible to get payment credentials that have nothing to do with the user

[atomicnumber3]

no, but it is _tremendously_ more difficult than email or even ID scans (unless you're doing actual verification, which is both more expensive and complicated than just charging a nominal fee or even just attaching a Card object to a stripe customer). Just getting to stand on top of an extremely robust existing system (payments) gets you so much adjacent help in keeping bad actors out, or at least getting it down to a human-team manageable level. It can be the difference between a viable business and not.

[makeitdouble]

› extremely robust existing system (payments)

It is not, indeed.

The first part is its goal: identity is secondary, the main purpose is money. It means a customer can put a fake name and address as long as the money part is considered OK. Most PSPs won't check the cardholder name (it can be used for fuzzy scoring, but exact match is a fool's errand). Address is usually only required for physical goods and won't be checked otherwise. And 3DSecure will shift the blame enough that the PSP won't need to care that much about the details.

The second part is the whole mess that comes with payments. You'll become a card testing pot in no time, and you'll be dealing with all the fuss just to check identities, you'll soon be rising the token payment to a significant amount to cover the costs, and before you realize it half your business has shifted into payment handling.

[MisterSandman]

Payment systems are significantly more robust than taking a picture of an ID to prove you’re you.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> you act like it's impossible to get payment credentials that have nothing to do with the user

This is incorrect. The parent acts like it isn't trivial to obtain payment methods that aren't linked to the payer. It seems like a reasonable possibility.

[dylan604]

> It seems like a reasonable possibility.

For whom? For people willing to be an asshole on the internet? For people willing to stalk other people online? This sounds exactly like the group of people that would look for ways of paying for something in ways not linked to them, even if that means "borrowing" someone else's identity

[PaulHoule]

Many people will do anything they can to hurt their ex after a breakup.

[djohnston]

Hey now! They use ID verification bub - how are you gonna fake that? It’s not like there are just public buckets of legitimate ID photos taken by real women for you to hoover up. Check mate.

[danesparza]

>> How is Tea even legal? Isn't this just a legal libel timebomb waiting to happen?

By this logic: I suppose glassdoor, yelp, or Google reviews aren't legal either?

What about identity verification as part of any employment offer?

[AndroTux]

The difference is, on these platforms you're rating legal entities. On Tea, you're rating, or rather sharing personal information about, an individual. Where I come from, sharing personal data of someone without their consent is not allowed.

[PaulHoule]

Also on those platforms you can see if people are trash talking you even if you don’t have a procedure to face your accuser.

Even the open platforms creep me out. I don’t like seeing unverified accounts of crime in Nextdoor, I think if you see some crime you go to the police. I had a series of in person interactions with a woman which seemed creepy in retrospect, her Nextdoor was full of creepy stuff including screenshots of creepy online interactions. At least this gives everyone clear evidence they should keep away.

[dragonwriter]

> Where I come from, sharing personal data of someone without their consent is not allowed.

Where you come from, people arent allowed to share their own experiences interacting with third parties without the third parties consent?

Sounds pretty oppressive, but there are absolutely many jurisdictions where that is not the case.

[ioasuncvinvaer]

They post images of the men in question without consent.

[dragonwriter]

Unless they are intimate images (in which case revenge porn laws are likely to apply), copyrightable images for which someone other than the poster is the creator posted without the copyright holder’s permission (in which case copyright applies), or being used for commercial promotion or to suggest endorsement (in which case, depending on which states law applies, state law right of personality/publicity, especially if the subject is a celebrity, might apply), that's generally legal in the US.

[ohdeargodno]

> that's generally legal in the US.

Cool, I'm sure Tea is only available to report things about United States citiz... nevermind.

It runs afoul of about a dozen european rights to privacy, imagery and consent laws. And that's just by posting pictures ! Libel and slander are a bunch of others, right to a response is also another... the list is long. It is, once again, yet another dudebro trying to skirt legality.

[oc1]

Honey, that's generally not legal in many jurisdictions in the world, including most of europe.

[ioasuncvinvaer]

Thank god the US is the only country in the world.

[dyauspitr]

Why have revenge porn laws and not revenge libel laws.

[danesparza]

Nah, man. They wanted to go on a date. There is risk involved, and implied consent.

This isn't any different from a friend sharing details of their date with somebody they know (including pictures). If it's a bad date, I'm sure the tone of the conversation would be different (and might include "stay away from this person")

[umanwizard]

> Where I come from

…is clearly not the US, which has probably the most expansive understanding of “freedom of speech” in the world.

[9dev]

So totally free, unless you criticise the empero… err, Trump or the government, of course. Or if you're against Israeli settlements. Or in favour of humane treatment of the People of Palestine. Or have information on the customers of Jeffrey Epstein. Or…

[laughing_man]

You can say all those things. Will some people think you're an idiot and refuse to do business with you? Sure. But you're not going to be arrested for things you say in the US unless you're making threats.

[9dev]

Tell that to the detained foreign students which participated in Israel protests.

[umanwizard]

Let me a bit more precise. I'm not claiming that the US actually always follows its own standards, or that there aren't authoritarian oversteps of power -- there are.

I'm just saying that the American definition of freedom of speech (whether the authorities follow it in practice or not) is unusually expansive. Edge cases like hate speech against particular ethnic groups, public insults, open support for terrorist organizations, etc. are much more likely to be legally protected in the US than in other countries, even including other liberal democracies.

[9dev]

That used to be the case, and I agree in principle. With the current administration, however, this is no longer true. Freedom of speech stops being free speech if the government detains people and revokes visas for having a certain opinion, tries to dictate the curriculum at universities, forces trans people to their birth gender, acts against lawyers with the wrong clients, excludes unwanted media from press conferences or sues them altogether… this list goes on for a while.

Donald Trump is a danger to the fundamental rights granted by the constitution, and the republicans are assisting him in tearing it down.

[mvdtnz]

Well I'm not American but I feel like all I have read for the last 8 months has been American organisations and American people criticising Trump, the US government and Israel. I am not aware of penalties for these orgs or people, do you have examples?

[9dev]

There are countless examples, and they are easily accessible via the news or your preferred search engine. Here is a selection:

  * https://www.ibanet.org/Trumps-assault-on-the-First-Amendment
  * https://theconversation.com/x-252706
  * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/x-rcna208057
  * https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/23/trump-harvard-michigan-dei.html

[chneu]

lol no it doesn't. american freedom is a bit of a joke but it's par for the course in the USA to make shit up and then defend it.

The USA doesn't even rank in the top 15 on the human freedom index. Most freedom indices don't even put the USA in the top 20. A few don't even put the USA in the top 30.

[throwaway48476]

In my personal and equally arbitrary freedom index north korea is #1.

[wqaatwt]

I neither agree nor disagree with the specific point about the US but all those indexes are silly, pointless and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Also they have very little to do with “measuring” freedom of speech anyway.

[bluescrn]

> On Tea, you're rating, or rather sharing personal information about, an individual.

Or in this case, sharing personal information about yourself...

[Bilal_io]

No, they'd be sharing the man's photo, name and phone number if I am not mistaken, and obviously without his consent.

[voxic11]

I think its a mostly US based app, in the US sharing your opinion about other people is protected speech.

[perihelions]

But sharing *facts* about other people is potentially defamatory speech (in the American context). There's a not-at-all small nuance here: when you make concrete allegations about your personal experiences, you're not sharing an opinion—not sharing your subjective reaction to publicly-known information—rather you're introducing novel facts, provable objective facts, into the discussion—your version of those facts. And that comes with genuine legal risks.

A remarkable fact that's stayed with me: Ken White (@popehat) once said that in his defamation law practice, his largest category of consultations was with clients who'd said negative things about a past romantic partner, who then threatened to sue. I believe his point was those negative things were true most of the time, but difficult to prove, or defend.

[firefax]

I thought, as a practical matter, it's on the person alleging slander or libel to prove falsehood?

I think sometimes folks don't properly threat model what can be done if someone chooses to think about what the consequences for breaking a rule are and letting that guide their actions, rather than striving to avoid breaking them out of some kind of moral principle.

[anonym29]

Hypothetically, if I said "firefax murdered an underage prostitute and then sexually violated the underage prostitute's corpse in 2018 and was never caught, I witnessed it happen and tried to report it but the police refused to even open an investigation, firefax is a dangerous predator and should not be trusted", and you lost your job because of that, should you be the one with the burden to prove that never happened?

[tpmoney]

It’s complicated in the US. The rules of thumb as I understand them are:

1) The truth is an absolute defense against libel claims, but it is a defense, so you must prove the truth of your claims.

2) Statements of opinion (or that a “reasonable person” would understand to be opinion) are with few exceptions protected. “Firefax is a rapist” is likely to not be considered a statement of opinion. “Firefax is a creepy asshole” likely is. “Firefax is a sexual predator” is probably going to be in a grey area and context and damages will be relevant.

3) The more “public” of a person you are, the harder it is to win a libel case, even the statements were false. For example, let’s say it turns out both that there is some “Epstein List” describing clients and their activities, and also that it turns out Trump doesn’t appear anywhere in that list. Trump is such a public figure (both as a celebrity and as the POTUS) that he would be extremely unlikely to win any libel cases against the internet randos confidently asserting he’s on the list even though that statement would have been a statement of fact, and would have been false.

4) A key part of the “opinion” grey area is whether you imply knowledge of heretofore unknown facts, or your relying on publicly available data. Internet randos might not lose a case, but someone like Elon Musk might if they said something like “I’ve seen the case files, Trump is definitely on that list and has done some sick things”. This is because Musk could reasonably be believed to have had privileged access to the information in question and have non-public facts they are basing their statements on. Internet randos on the other hand are largely going to be considered making their statements on the back of publicly known facts (e.g. photos, business connections, public actions and statements) and general “vibes”

[dragonwriter]

> But sharing facts about other people is potentially defamatory speech

Yes, and? The service is protected in the US by Section 230, and Tea doesn't operate anywhere else currently. Individual users who use it defame are, in principal, subject to defamation liability, but in the US (and, again, that’s the only jurisdiction currently relevant), the burden to proving that the description was both false and at least negligently made (as well as the other elements of the tort) falls on the plaintiff (it is often said that “truth is an absolute defense”, but that’s misleading—falsity and fault are both elements of the prima facie case the plaintiff must establish.)

Sure, in a jurisdiction with strict liability for libel and where truth is actually a defense, and/or where the platform itself, being a deep pockets target, was exposed, Tea would be a more precarious business. But that’s not where it operates.

[TheOtherHobbes]

The most obvious legal claim at the moment is that Tea was negligent about its security.

I suspect that's going to be more of a problem for Tea than hypothetical individual defamation cases.

Although having said that, how can you sue someone for defamation if you never find out you're being defamed?

Any woman can say "Don't date [name], he's a bad person" and the victim will never know.

Unless he asks a female friend for a social credit check, all [name] will see is a shrinking pool of opportunities.

[perihelions]

That's all true. I wasn't clear on the context of this thread, whether we were talking about the users or the platform.

[blks]

Is making a post on eg Instagram after breaking up with your ex and telling that she/he e.g. abused you, illegal too?

[reliabilityguy]

Heard of Amber Heard?;)

I mean, I think it depends what you claim in this post.

[bigfatkitten]

Even if it’s true and provable, very few people have the money to defend a defamation matter.

[const_cast]

Sharing your opinion is protected speech, by lying is not always protected speech, particularly if done with the intent to financially hurt someone.

[firefax]

Devil's advocate, but how is saying someone is an unreliable romantic partner going to financially hurt someone? Maybe the reason I haven't had success in the policy arena is because I've been too kind, given recent events :-)

[lazide]

What words do you think a vindictive ex uses? I don’t think ‘unreliable romantic partner’ are any of them.

I have seen false rape claims, false claims of child abuse, neglect, etc.

With zero repercussions, of course.

[const_cast]

I'm not sure, it depends case to case and what the court thinks. I think, generally, if you can prove it directly caused you to lose lots of money then you can make an argument.

[parineum]

If you're boss is on the app.

[gitremote]

Do you think a women's dating safety app is mainly about women lying and intending to hurt men, because it's rare for men to stalk or sexually assault women?

[qcnguy]

A few days ago a video leaked of a woman riding in a Mexican taxi, who was demanding the driver went faster. He refused because it'd be dangerous, and she immediately started threatening to report him as a harasser to the police. She even said he had to speed up or else the police would be waiting for him when they got there. She didn't realize her whole conversation was recorded on camera.

A lot of men have had experiences like this one. Either directly or they know someone it happened to. Yeah #NotAllWomen but way too many will exploit the feminist #BelieveAllWomen culture to gain even trivial benefits. An app devoted to letting women anonymous gossip and engage in reputation warfare without fear of consequence, or even fear that the man might reply in self defense, is going to get flooded with women like the taxi passenger.

[emseetech]

I do. Not as an indictment of women but an indictment of social apps. Apps like this are way too hard to moderate, manage and verify. They quickly get swarmed by bad actors and misused. Again, not because women don't have genuine safety concerns in the dating world but because apps are not a viable way to manage those concerns.

Some social problems just don't have technological solutions.

[xhkkffbf]

I'm sorry and I'll be voted down for this, but I do think that it will attract plenty of fibbing and deliberate or not-so-deliberate stretching of the truth. Anyone who is rejected tends to be a bit angry about it. In this case, women who are ghosted can say whatever they want.

This isn't all of the people, but in my experience in life it's more than enough to make this app impossible to filter.

[Fogest]

> Do you think a women's dating safety app is mainly about women lying

That's not what it is intended for, but many people after relationships end can be extremely emotional and sometimes very spiteful. It's not uncommon for people to embellish or lie about the truth to make themselves look better and the other person look shitty. Especially if you're the one being dumped, you may be even more likely to engage in petty behaviour.

I personally have experienced an ex making up a sexual assault story. This kind of app didn't exist then, but she even went as far as reporting me to the police. Luckily the police investigated and could easily discern it was a lie. Going to the police is obviously a much higher burden than using an app, and yet many females still go make false SA claims there. Do you really think it wouldn't be a common problem for people to do the same in an app at a much higher rate?

People often believe things like SA claims without any evidence and will often even attack people trying to defend the person or insist on some kind of proof. It means that someone making up bull crap on these apps is going to be treated like it is true, yet the rates of lies would likely be pretty high.

People can just be so crazy when it comes to relationships/love. Especially when it comes to people in their teens or early 20's, the brain isn't fully developed and dealing with these emotions is even more challenging and leads to even more rash decision making.

[GoatInGrey]

We grant a tremendous amount of leeway and power to accusations made by women against men in society today. There are always honest people using things for their intended purpose. Though they are also dishonest people using things for their own ulterior motives.

A well-designed system will maximize utility for the former, and minimize utility for the latter. An app where women can leave what are practically anonymous reviews for men is not such a system.

[Mawr]

> because it's rare for men to stalk or sexually assault women?

The more common it is, the more damaging false claims of it are. It's a self-defeating linear relationship.

[bawolff]

That's not really relavent to whether someone is going to get sued for defamation.

It might be relavent to who wins the lawsuit, but sometimes the mere existence of a lawsuit is pretty painful.

[DocTomoe]

So all I need to do to mark another guy (who might be, for example, competing for a job I want, or a certain woman's attention) as a rapist on a platform that's used by people in the location this guy lives in in the US is a (fake) female driver's license, a photo of the guy in question, and a name?

coolcoolcool. I'm sure that never ever gets abused horrifically.

[mjbroe02]

That doesn't apply when you publish information for broad consumption. Then it becomes libel. People need to realize that posting on a site where you can reasonably expect that your words may be consumed by the masses makes you a publisher. That comes with responsibilities and is not protected the same way as an individual's personal speech.

[hyperliner]

Not if it’s libel or slander, both which are generically defamation.

[gitremote]

It's not defamation if it's true. Why do you think women warning other women about rapey and stalker men are mostly lies? Even if it's only 5% of men, wouldn't the discussion focus on that dangerous 5% over persecuting the innocent 95%, as a matter of self-preservation?

[GoatInGrey]

An irony in this conversation is how normalized it is for women to be concerned about men as a demographic when it's only a small minority that inflict harm. While it's controversial for men to be concerned about women as a demographic when it's only a small minority that inflict harm.

I still maintain my pet theory that this is a downstream effect of the normalization of paranoia around pedophiles that began hitting the mainstream in the '80s. The modern world is exceptionally safe, yet to the average person, it feels exceptionally dangerous.

...While I've got the hood up, I'll continue soapboxing.

I've started seeing rare instances such as a young woman walking around a corner and there is a man rounding the same corner, surprising her by mistake, and the woman starts crying or breathing in a panicked way, unable to regulate herself for several minutes. It's not always walking around the corner at the same time, but there's a common pattern of being surprised by a man just going about his day and experiencing a severe fear response to that interaction.

When I look at a lot of cultural related issues today, beyond just gender, I see many signs of pervasive psychological issues. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm very confident that the root cause is more complicated than something you can describe in a single sentence.

[gitremote]

What was leaked was women's personal data, like driver's licenses. What they shared with each other was their experiences with men who sexually assaulted them or stalked them and their names, not the men's personal data.

Men's driver licenses were not distributed online. Only women's driver licenses were distributed online.

[quietbritishjim]

I'm not familiar with this app, but surely those accusations of sexual assault are only useful to other users of the men are sufficiently well identified?

[gitremote]

Name and photo.

[9dev]

So… Personal data?

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

The article says that what gets shared with the app is a picture of the man, and it's not just "those who sexually assaulted them or stalked them" but anyone they want feedback about.

I assume the app then runs facial recognition.

This may be legal in the US, but not under GDPR. Pictures of faces are biometric data (explicitly listed as such), which falls under additional restrictions beyond personally identifiable information.

A drivers license with the picture blacked out would be less sensitive than the picture itself!

[9dev]

> This may be legal in the US, but not under GDPR.

This whole story is an amazing example of why the GDPR is correct about this, IMHO.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

There are soo many examples from the US showing why GDPR is a good thing: Clearview AI (biometric mass surveillance, essentially "search the internet by face"), car manufacturers collecting and selling location data, phone companies collecting and selling location data, ISPs collecting and selling browsing behavior, companies running mass surveillance on license plates and selling the data to law enforcement and really anyone who pays, some DNA sequencing related abuses that I don't remember the details of, all the data collected by the ad "ecosystem" (note that this still happens in GDPR-land because enforcement is lacking), this, ...

[fkyoureadthedoc]

> By this logic: I suppose glassdoor, yelp, or Google reviews aren't legal either?

Imagining a future where I have to pay Tea to promote and astroturf my profile or they lower my rating, and pay bot farms to post glowing reviews

[fragmede]

In this future that you want me to imagine, do you imagine, that I'm imagining that I am poor or I am rich? Because oh man, I didn't have much luck at the lottery or at blackjack or craps or startups or crypto, but I'm sure, this time, AI is gonna help me strike it rich!

[Beijinger]

I have not used the app nor read much about it but this guys talk about it: https://youtu.be/WjfpryoQ0Mk

Yes, as far as I understand, you upload pictures of men, either taken in the wild or from dating sites (Tinder) against their will. I am pretty sure that this would be illegal in some jurisdictions. Especially EU.

[ajuc]

Companies aren't people (despite lots of people pretending they are).

[carabiner]

It's exactly like Lulu which shutdown due to privacy issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_(app)

[emseetech]

Every couple years someone tries this and it immediately turns into a cesspool because no matter the good intentions of the makers, it attracts the worst kind of person as active users.

It gets shut down, everyone forgets, then someone eventually has a brilliant idea...

It come from a place of sincerity but defenders imagine everyone would use it for the same reasons they would: Warning people of genuine threats in the dating world. They would never use it for gossip, or revenge, or creative writing, etc. so they don't imagine others would.

But at scale, if generously only 0.1% of women in America are bad actors that would weaponize this app, that's over 150k people (not to mention men slipping past security). And the thing about bad actors is that one bad actor can have an outsized effect.

[junto]

These kinds of apps are already in existence across many cities in the world in the form of informal, invite-only WhatsApp and Telegram groups.

The problem is the demand is there for such groups and I see posts that range from, “this guy tried to get me to get in his car”, or “man exposed himself to me”, to “man has twice approached children at my child’s school” or “I was drugged and raped after meeting with X on Y dating app”.

Lots of sexual attackers are known to multiple women.

Fact is that in lots of countries rape kits don’t get processed, it’s hard to secure a conviction, many serial sex offenders walk free and many women don’t want to go through a reliving of their trauma in court.

As a result these kinds of groups are very useful, not just for women who are actively dating, but for women who are simply existing in day-to-day public life. We have a president and a supreme court judge who both have been accused of serious sex offenses and nothing happened.

Is there a chance that some man who has done nothing wrong, gets accused by a woman in these groups? Yes of course there is a chance that could happen, but many would prefer to not take the risk of dating someone that has been accused of being a sex offender and the vast majority of posts with confirmation by multiple women confirm that bias.

These groups help keep women safer than without them. There’s a good reason why many women just don’t date at all any more. Covid lockdowns reminded them that they don’t really need it and it’s more hassle than it’s worth.

Sadly the vast majority of men are fine (not all men), but not enough call out the bad and dangerous behavior of a minority of their friends and peers. Until that happens women will be drawn to these apps and groups to try to be safer and not be a part of a sex crime statistic.

[emseetech]

"invite-only" is key because it requires a trust relationship, if not directly then through minimal degrees of separation. While not perfect they can basically work while apps for the general population cannot because there is no trust between the users.

[junto]

Indeed. This trust is a critical point. The invitation mechanism is a web of trust. Not infallible but better than these apps that try to centralize that through identification.

[carabiner]

> Is there a chance that some man who has done nothing wrong, gets accused by a woman in these groups? Yes of course there is a chance that could happen, but many would prefer to not take the risk of dating someone that has been accused of being a sex offender and the vast majority of posts with confirmation by multiple women confirm that bias.

The concern of false accusation appears to be... brushed aside. Are you a man? How would you feel if you were falsely accused? Knowing that this could snowball into being doxxed, having your employer informed etc. Innocent men have been jailed for this.

[chneu]

Innocent people have killed themselves over this stuff. The mob don't care.

[derbOac]

Based on some of the things I've seen in my professional and personal circles, I'd say there's much more than a chance, and the level of potential distortion is probably much greater, with more consequences, than some are acknowledging.

[carabiner]

There needs to be a startup accelerator or VC that solely focuses on recycled ideas. We could have an app that gathers strangers for dinners, one for reviewing people, and so on. Since all of these gained traction at some point, the idea would be you get 1-2 quick puffs of these discarded cigarette butts before selling or shutting down. Just vibe code it, go viral, collect some subscriber fees, then close due to whatever reason.

[bigfatkitten]

We’ve already got one: YC

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41707495

[burnt-resistor]

TechStars already exists.

[arrowsmith]

> Peeple failed because they couldn't eliminate bias and gossip against anyone

Without bias and gossip, who would even want to use the app?

[dyauspitr]

Almost everyone? And not in a cheap throwaway comment way, I mean genuinely. The value is that it’s informative not a gossip rag.

[theflyinghorse]

I don't think you understand humans. Spicy social gossip is far more attractive to people rather than anything informative.

[xhkkffbf]

I believe that at least one person has gotten a posting removed about himself by complaining directly to Apple. He presumed that Tea wouldn't care.

https://x.com/JacobJohnson494/status/1948222924235624870

[kingkawn]

[flagged]

[givemeethekeys]

There are large Facebook groups dedicated to "Are we dating the same guy?" / "Are we dating the same woman?" that predate this app.

[Fogest]

A lot of these groups have also had people get successfully sued for defamation.

[ssalka]

I would imagine Tea enjoys protections from Section 230, same as all other social media sites.

[listless]

This looks like a slam book. Or that’s what girls called it when I was in high school. Basically just a place where you write mean things about people you don’t like. And those people don’t get to see it.

[boppo1]

Yes but if you brand it differently it's about safety!

[dmatech]

Providing a platform for defamation and other tortious speech is generally legally protected under §230. They still have to respond to court orders and DMCA requests, though. This is how sites like Kiwi Farms remain online. That said, commercial apps can sometimes be sued under defective product laws.

[singleshot_]

“False slander” is not a thing.

The answer to your last two questions is found within section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[pdabbadabba]

> “False slander” is not a thing.

It's only not a thing because, in the U.S., it's redundant. In other jurisdictions, it might be a thing, because there are places where a claim can be both defamatory and true.

[laughing_man]

This is more a question of English than law. Slanderous statements are false by definition.

There are countries where "false defamation" could be a term of art. Japan, for instance, where spreading rumors about someone that hurt their reputation is actionable even if those rumors are true. If your boss is having an affair, for instance, and you tell all your coworkers, he can successfully sue you.

[exiguus]

A gray area in my eyes. As a father, I think it's good that my daughter uses the app. You only need to look at the statistics to see how many women are killed by their male partners every year.

[thefourthchime]

It's harmful to spread this kind of fear. Statistically it's less than 0.05% of women die because they are killed by their partner. This puts a stigma on men in general as some sort of dangerous savages.

[adolph]

> Statistically it's less than 0.05% of women die because they are killed by their partner.

2020 USA Per Capita Count of Mortality Event: Assault(Homicide), Female: 0.00139%

https://datacommons.org/tools/visualization#visType%3Dtimeli...

[standardUser]

As a man, I find it absurd and even dangerous to not attach some stigma to men. That you feel the need to invoke "dangerous savages" is maybe your own prerogative, but by any sober and fact-based analysis it is indisputable that women are justified in acting cautiously when dealing with strange men.

[fsckboy]

mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to kill their children. and the same is true for child abuse and neglect.

humans in general act like psychos, the danger comes more from the size differential than propensity to act like a jerk.

[standardUser]

Most violence is perpetrated by men. If you're only response to that hard, cold fact is some stat about infanticide, maybe you're not honestly grappling with the issue.

[huhkerrf]

And yet domestic violence is equally done by men and women, except that most men don't report the abuse because of people like you who act like it doesn't happen. It's disappointing.

You bring up fact based analyses. Let's see what they have to say.

> Over two hundred studies found that men and women perpetrate intimate partner violence at roughly equivalent rates, depending on where the samples are drawn from, and what level of violence is identified. (Dutton and Nicholls, 2005).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog...

[throwawayq3423]

Most violence is perpetrated by men, but men are also equal victims.

[throwanem]

I'm justified in acting cautiously when dealing with strange pit bulls, too. That isn't the same as saying pit bulls deserve to be stigmatized. Or I don't think it is.

[guywithahat]

It's also leads to racism when people break down relationship violence by race. It's a dumb argument that helps no one

[cauch]

I think the problem is not the statement, but the conclusion.

Do we have more physical violence from men towards women than the opposite? I think I saw that the reality is yes. Does it mean that men are biologically coded to be violent, or is it a question of education and culture?

If you conclude the second one, it is not "sexist" (on the contrary, it may even be that the culture that creates the problem is itself rooted in sexism and that acknowledging some reality about its existence may help changing this culture), and does not imply prejudice against men, just acknowledging that we need to be careful in case of bad apples.

It still means that talking about this requires to be very careful.

To react on your example, I think it is a good think to notice if some population have a bigger problem at this subject than others, and we can then identify more easily the places where this problem forms and target these places. But people who concludes "look at violence divided by race, so I can generalise and be prejudicial to everyone in some race and not other" are idiots.

[belorn]

The statistics is a bit more complex and nuanced than giving straight answers. Studies looking at any form of violence in partner relationships shows both women and men having equal amount. When looking at physical violence, especially those that lead to people being charged with a crime, men are over-represented in heterosexual relationships.

However, homosexual relationships has equal rate of partner violence as heterosexual ones. A bisexual woman that has a relationship with an other woman will double her rate of physical violence compare to relationship with a man (statically). A man who has a relationship with an other man will half his rate of violence. This makes no sense at all (unless we believe that sexual orientation is an factor for violent behavior), unless we add a additional factor of sexual dimorphism. Men are on average larger and more muscular, and there seems to be a correlation between being the larger/stronger and using physical strength/fists during a fight. The smaller person is in return more likely to use tools or other means of violence. Statistically, fist also has a higher probability to do damage than improvised weapons, since people are more proficient in using their fists.

Does it mean men are biologically coded to be violent? No. Is it a question about education and culture. Maybe in some countries/cultures, and it wouldn't hurt to use the education system to teach people conflict resolution. Getting people who are physically larger to not exploit that fact during a heated fight is likely a hard problem to solve on a population level.

[cauch]

Not sure what is your point.

I think "any form of violence" is not a constructive direction. First, this ends up being very subjective: between 2 forms of psychological violence, which one is the most violent? Secondly, if indeed it is cultural, it implies that different sub-culture may have different ways of acting, so we can always play the subgroups to make it says whatever we want. But most importantly, it is not very relevant for our context: in the case of the first interactions during heterosexual dating, pretending that men risk as much as women seems a very unconvincing claim, for several reasons (even if under-represented it should be under-represented to an unrealistic level to reach an equal level, and it also does not fit with plenty of cultural tropes (I can find a video explaining explicitly that manly men need to dominate their female partner. I'm sure it exists, but the simple fact that I cannot easily find a video explaining explicitly that womenly women need to dominate their male partner shows it's not that of a trope. On the other hand, I can also easily find videos about "trad wife" that will explain that a womenly woman must be with a dominating man))

For the rest, I think we say the same thing: talking about the visible issues is not a problem in itself, but people instrumentalising these issues to be racist or sexist are the problem.

[hdgvhicv]

Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than women

[standardUser]

Yes, primarily by other men as we all know.

[cauch]

Not sure what is your point?

It feels a bit like saying "there is a bug in software X, but there is also a bug in software Y, so let's not fix the bug in software X".

Of course, men also suffer from problems. It even feels that it is usually also due to machismo or something similar. Sometimes, it feels like the majority of men's problem is in fact self-inflicted by the manosphere. They both complain of suicide rate, army draft, violence against men, but they also promote a culture of not-showing-emotion-otherwise-you-are-not-manly, a-man-is-worthless-if-they-dont-succeed, army-is-manly-and-women-are-weak, a-man-should-show-dominence-and-other-men-are-a-threath, ...

People likes to see things in black or white, but the reality is more complicated, and there is no advantages that does not bring also some disadvantages.

[exiguus]

The context was a dating app. And yes, men are also victims by men.

[standardUser]

Race is America is extremely idiosyncratic. Gender relations exhibit a far more consistent dynamic cross-culturally.

[octopoc]

Calling it "extremely idiosyncratic" is not indicative of reality:

> Black people are the most likely to experience domestic violence—either male-to-female or female-to-male—followed by Hispanic people and White people.2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010-2012 state report.

> Asian people are the least likely to experience intimate partner violence.[1]

[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/domestic-violence-varies-by-eth...

[standardUser]

You misunderstood my comment and instead gave examples that further support the idea that race relations in America are unique and particular to our history and geography. That's why race statistics in the US are not well-suited for cross-cultural comparison, let alone for drawing gargantuan conclusions about inherent racial traits (as racists are often looking to do).

[exiguus]

The risk of females being murdered by an intimate partner is five times higher than for males. And murder is just the very end of the spectrum. And by definition, calling out men, is not racism.

[Rebelgecko]

Are there other groups that are 5x more likely to commit murder? Even if there are, IMO we shouldn't judge every member of that group for the actions of a small minority

[exiguus]

Are we still talking about a App that helps with dating?

[HPsquared]

It's better to think in terms of overall life damage and "quality of life years lost". I think it's very debatable which side loses more from getting involved in relationships.

[exiguus]

In my opinion, it's dangerous to consider absolute numbers alone in this context. Saying something like, "Less than 0.02% of paragliders die because of the sport," can be misleading. When nn reality, the chance of dying from paragliding is 1000 times higher than in football. When I choose my next hobby, this information is very useful.

[spinach]

Statistically that is a rather small number. But if we take the number of women in say, America, a web search says 334.9 million. 0.05% of that is 167,450. That is quite a lot of women being killed by their partner.

[deathanatos]

According to the UNODC[1], in 2023, the rate of all murders of women in the US was 0.00205%. (2.05 per 100,000) Partner violence appears to account for ~34% of violence against women[2] (but vs. 6% for men), so that would be 0.697 per 100k or ~0.0007%, or ~1190 women/yr in the US[3]. Assuming I've done the math right… the risk is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than what you came up with.

> Partner violence appears to account for ~34% of violence against women[2] (but vs. 6% for men)

And this is sort of the point of the comment higher up: when you cut the stat this way, it seems like men are wildly dangerous creeps. But it is a statistic comparing one group to another group. We need to instead look at the absolute rate of partner violence to decide if men are on the whole violent murders or so, and there, the overall risk is low.

[1]: https://dataunodc.un.org/dp-intentional-homicide-victims

[2]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offende...

[3]: (I've assumed a round population of 340M for the US, with 50/50 gender, just an approximation.)

[adolph]

> when you cut the stat this way, it seems like men are wildly dangerous creeps.

Not exactly. The statistics didn't specify the gender identity of the perpetuator, just the relationship to the victim and the gender identity of the victim.

[kgwgk]

> the number of women in say, America, a web search says 334.9 million

Doesn't look correct.

[pbhjpbhj]

USA population is c.350M total, so they're probably off by half.

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/us-demographics/

[ehutch79]

That looks like the general population of the US, and is out of date, it’s 340m+

[edmundsauto]

5k women are murdered in America each year, fwiw.

18k men are murdered. But women are murdered by their partners at a higher rate.

[cwmoore]

How many men are murdered by their partner's other or would-be partners? Not none.

Is suicide not counted in any way? A significant other or their loss will have a significant impact on mental health.

[exiguus]

I don't know were you have this numbers from, but in 2021 34% of women were killed by partner and 76% of women where killed by a known person (family, friends, colleges, partner) [1].

Edit: 100% are murder victims

https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offende...

[edmundsauto]

That’s out of women who were murdered or killed in manslaughter cases. OP was talking about base rates. 5000/170000000 is about 0.03%.

[GoatInGrey]

Your wording here is clumsy. You're saying that 34% of the adult female population was murdered by their partner. I'm assuming you meant female murder victims and not women in general?

[exiguus]

To clarify, its about murdered victims. I thought this was clear. I thought we are still talking about partnership and dating.

[K0balt]

I think poster is looking at mortality risk, not mortality cause.

[qualeed]

Your stats are for murder victims. I assume that the parent poster was talking about all causes of death.

I have no idea if their number is correct for that either.

[exiguus]

Could be. But I'm not. And the context is App for dating.

[qualeed]

>But I'm not.

But... you're trying to correct their statistics?

I agree with you that in the context, your stats maybe make more sense. But if you're going to correct someone, you generally should recognize what they were trying to communicate in the first place.

[jameslk]

I keep seeing the defense for Tea as an app for women’s safety, which is of course a valid concern. Wouldn’t it make more sense for a service to exist, like some kind of enforcement service provided by the government, where others can report safety concerns and that service goes and does something about it legally?

If such a service exists and isn’t being too effective, shouldn’t that be worked on?

My guess is that there’s more to the reasons for why Tea is popular but the safety argument is largely being used to defend it

[ronsor]

> Wouldn’t it make more sense for a service to exist, like some kind of enforcement service provided by the government, where others can report safety concerns and that service goes and does something about it legally?

I think this is called "the police"

[jameslk]

It seems you’ve discovered my point

[sali0]

No it's called sarcasm

[blks]

Online men-dominated forums often dislike and feel personally attacked by people talking about sexual abuse/harassment done by other men. I guess they immediately imagine themselves being falsely accused of such acts, rather than being a woman that is attacked.

[John-117]

Right. Generally, people don't like things that can only negatively impact them.

[tpmoney]

I think groups in general feel personally attacked by things that attack people on the basis of their immutable group characteristics. Notably women dislike and feel attacked by unqualified statements like "women are crazy" or calling someone a "karen". Black people dislike and feel attacked when people talk about "ghetto trash" or "welfare queens".

Sure any individual discussion about an individual might justifiably refer to that person as "crazy" or "ghetto trash". But the nature of online spaces, and the nature of the public discourse that tends to bring these phrases and discussions into the public eye very quickly starts painting people with broad brushes.

People also feel attacked because often times discussions tend to confuse useful rhetorical devices for conveying a point with justification for a behavior that has harmful impacts on the broader group. For example, it was pretty common to here the "bowl of M&Ms where one M&M is poisoned" analogy in the height of the "Me Too" movement. It's a useful rhetorical device for explaining why someone would fell cautious about a strange man, and why they wouldn't start from a position of trust. But it's also a terrible way of generally treating men in your life, and a terrible broad philosophy for organizations and governments to follow.

And we know this rhetorical device makes bad policy and at large is harmful to innocent people because another time in recent history when that analogy was really popular was immediately after the Sept 11 attacks when talking about Muslims in general and immigrants from Muslim countries. Surely no one would find it strange that Muslims might dislike and feel personally attacked by "people talking about crimes and terrorism done by other Muslims" in the same way that many online spaces talk about "sexual abuse/harassment done by other men". Surely we wouldn't be surprised if people felt attacked or disliked an app for sharing anonymous and private information about suspicious Muslims right? Or let's say someone noticed that black people are statistically 2x as likely relative to their population to be the offender of a violent crime[1]. You'd reasonably expect people to be bothered by an app that excluded black people from signing up and was entirely about strangers providing un-verified experiences with black people under the premise of keeping people safe.

Ultimately, people are bad at statistics and really bad at understanding the degree to which a small minority of individuals can affect a large majority of people by virtue of repeat offending. So it can be true both that lots of people have completely valid awful experiences with members of a given broad group, and that members of that group feel unfairly maligned when discussion about those experiences paints with broad, unqualified strokes.

[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cv23.pdf

[blks]

Women talking about their history sexual violence do not attack you or group you are a part of. Bringing some of these normalised actions to light do not attack you unless you’re a rapist yourself.

[exiguus]

With a statement like: “men have caused countless wars in the world and created an incredible amount of suffering and injustice as a result.” No “normal” man would feel addressed and say “But women ...”

[storus]

You are probably unaware of unintended consequences enabled by this app - many women use it to find bad boys they feel attracted to due to some brokenness in female psyche. So you'll get public outrage on one hand and private DMs on the other from them, based on how bad you are described/vetted by other women on the app.

[laughing_man]

If you had a son, would you think it's good spiteful women from his past were labeling him some kind of abuser on TEA when he has no way to know these allegations even exist?

[saparaloot]

You still think so?

[jabjq]

I wonder how well-received this comment would be if it mentioned crime statistics regarding something else than gender.

[webstrand]

Not only that, I think they're forfeit their Section 230 protections since they're exercising editorial control by excluding males from the platform. So they'd be directly liable for any defamation they publish on their platform.

[pridzone]

It would be in Apple and Google’s best interest to pull these apps immediately. Multiple Supreme Court justices have indicated an interest in narrowing the breadth of section 230 immunity. This app, structured entirely around effecting the reputation of private individuals, provides a relatively clean case to do so. It’s not a stretch that the app could be considered a ‘developer in part’ of the content it hosts, and thus lose section 230 protection.

A narrowing of section 230 would not be good for Apple or Google, though they wouldn’t face any liability for the Tea apps conduct.

[mikeyouse]

That's not how 230 works - why do people keep parroting this misinformation?

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

[schoen]

It continues to confuse me that the publisher/distributor distinction that section 230 was meant to remove (created by prior Federal court decisions) gets so frequently interpreted as if section 230 had been intended to establish it.

To me this feels as if people widely thought that the Apollo Program was intended to prevent people from traveling to the moon, or Magna Carta was meant to prevent barons from limiting the king's power, or Impressionism was all about using technical artistic skills to depict scenes in a realistically detailed way.

[derbOac]

Thanks for posting the link. I had read that before and forgot.

I think sometimes confusion about Section 230 maybe points to some legal soft spots.

I think there's a trend — good or bad — for courts to see websites as accountable for users' activities on the site when those activities are systematic and collectively illegal or jeopardized, when the website is seen as encouraging the activity.

It's not hard for me to imagine a court deciding that the intrinsic nature of the website encourages systematic libel, and is therefore is somehow involved in the creation of post content.

Even more specifically, I'm not sure the "good faith" clause of Section 230 even applies to something like Tea in the case of libel, should libel be there.

Now, actually showing libel is another thing, but that's also easier for me to imagine today than even a year ago, especially in the presence of a data breach where posters are exposed.

I guess I don't see Tea as being held legally responsible for anything about the content of user posts, in the US at least, for the reasons outlined in that article. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it did happen.

[webstrand]

Because it's really good misinformation, thanks for the link. I had no idea that it was effectively unconditional protection.

[magicalist]

> I had no idea that it was effectively unconditional protection.

Defamation is still not protected, it's just the person who posted it who is liable. Meanwhile the site's "editorial control" is protected by the first amendment, not section 230.

[JoshTriplett]

Huge credit for actually updating in response to evidence.

[Nasrudith]

Because they seem to want it to work that way and seem to think that by spreading the misinformation that it will somehow change the way the law is interpreted.