> 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 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	naet 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		If it's an opinion or a statement of a fact it isn't defamation. "He's a bad person and you shouldn't date him" is an opinion you can legally express anywhere as much as you want.

▲

perihelions 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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