[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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)

[prisenco]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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...