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.
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.
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.)
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.
Personally I just don’t believe words means anything and am unmoved by anything people say. I use them as a necessary evil.
And in the US I’m off the hook for others health and food, shelter. They aren’t doing the political work to change that. I take that to mean you’re all so indifferent to your existence, who cares about your story?
So long as the majority are off the hook for you, who cares? We got our own thing to focus on.
Not really seeing the concern for sweatshop kids forced into making your clothes. I give back to labor exploiters all the empathy they project for the plight of others the labor exploiters ignore.
Tech professionals with nothing to fall back on as far as manual skills tried to capitalize. Not sure it’s going to work out for them for much longer.
What happened on the tea app were probably not knowable, observable or refutable for those actually being doxxed or slandered.
That isn’t me saying 4chan is absolutely morally in the clear, but it’s still quite a significant distinction.
It seems like your argument is based on (1) the discussion being slander (assumption); and (2) the idea that you could refute it if it were public (good luck, low credibility, also most men would immediately respond with vulgar name calling and - at least if anonymous - threats).
Men get upset when they are, as a policy, unable to view the (not fact checked) things being said about them in a public internet forum.
I am not sure what problems you've run into purchasing sex toys. The retail outlets that sell them certainly don't seem to care who buys them, so I'm guessing you're upset with some past partner that didn't want them used without discussing it in advance? Just discuss it in advance and realize that sometimes your partner is going to say "no" to your desires. It's a partnership, not a dictatorship. There are going to be limits. As for being bi, again... what are the circumstances? This doesn't seem to be a universal problem. Lots of people are bi. We are largely having a good time.
I'm not complaining about some interpersonal issues, I'm complaining at how society treats men who purchase sex toys writ large. You trying to deny this is happening is misandry and you need to check your privilege stat before you commit a mortal sin against social justice.
1. https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/28948/1/...
2. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/the-male-sex-toy-stigma...
Or about the widespread experience of purportedly accepting female partners getting the "ick" from male bisexuality.
1. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a2740...
2. https://bi.org/en/articles/bi-men-are-not-considered-attract...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1i2eoog/women...
4. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bisexual-men-dating-wom...
Misandry is a bullshit concept created by the manosphere. The Wikipedia article literally says as much. Women are not systematically oppressing men. Go find any conspiracy theory about who is running the world. None of them are ever women. (George Soros, Elon Musk, etc. etc.) I have lived as both genders and I have to tell you, you do not get much benefit of the doubt as a woman. Look at how you're talking to me now! Do you talk to men like that?
I'm willing to concede your point that society is homophobic. Everyone is awash in propaganda that the only valid relationship is one between a man and a woman, and it hurts if that's not what you feel and it's what other people expect you to feel. People are largely under-educated and make no effort to look beyond the propaganda, keeping themselves in the closet for decades over this sort of thing (hi!). I am guessing from your use of the term "blue-hairs" that you don't identify as "queer" but it's something you should probably try on for size. I bet that in a more queer-friendly community, being bi doesn't give many people "the ick". But among cishet folks? I can definitely see that.
It was only anonymous for the women speaking there, but not for the men they were speaking about, hence the justified outrage, since strangers are gossiping/slandering you in a public online space behind a 2$ entry fee.
Would you also support if men had their own such public "safe spaces" to gossip anonymously about real women with their names? I can assure you it would be shut down immediately.
So then why do we allow double standards? I thought we were supposed to have gender equality?
Because like the earlier comment points out, letting anonymous people trash talk real people and name them is a core feature of 4chan.
Yeah, why do we allow them.
Women: Notoriously prone to gossip.
Men: Notoriously prone to murdering romantic partners (most women who are victims of homicide are killed by a current or former romantic partner).
People on the internet: It's these gossiping women who are the problem.
The problem isn't that the site is anonymous. The problem is I, as a man, have no way to check to see if it contains false or defamatory information about me because you can't sign up as a man.
I have no problem with anonymity. But this site exists to allow spiteful women to break the law.
"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.
Do modern men need an app to understand this?
"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.