> 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.

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

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

Why have revenge porn laws and not revenge libel laws.

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

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.

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

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?

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”

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.

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

Heard of Amber Heard?;)

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

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.

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.

If you're boss is on the app.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

[dead]

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.

So… Personal data?

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, ...