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.
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.
Even if Section 230 is written out, the First Amendment still defends app makers from prior restraint. As demonstrated in Snyder v Phelps, It's not illegal to embarrass private individuals or provide a service/platform that permits such an outcome.
It is potentially illegal to embarrass private individuals. It’s covered by state defamation and privacy torts. Privacy torts, such as ‘public disclosure of private facts’ can apply even if the information is true. Without section 230 immunity, the app developer can face liability for user generated content. Section 230 protections don’t apply if the app acted as a ‘developer in part’ of the content.
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.