4 ms·

Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? I'm sure more than a few would have joined, while pretending to be in one, and su

by daemin 11y ago

Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? I'm sure more than a few would have joined, while pretending to be in one, and subsequently have started a relationship.

masklinn 11y ago
> Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? No, it's only marketed/targeted towards that demo.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I always thought it would fun to join when I was single. Then I could be accused of being a dishonest immoral monster when my hookups discovered I wasn't really married.
ZoFreX 11y ago
According to this poster: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_stoned_to_death_for_gay_sex_gay_man/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_ston... there is not a requirement to be in a relationship to use the site. And now he might die, because of the leak.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >And now he might die, because of the leak. Isn't this akin to blaming Snowden/Manning for diplomatic fallout instead of blaming those who were engaging in the wrongful practices that led to the fallout.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - smtddr 11y ago
    FYI, for others reading this comment: The wrongful practice implied here is the stoning, not being gay. Took me awhile to figure that out. I almost went on a rant.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      tl;dr: In this case, it is the people killing gays who are at fault for gays being killed. I see three parts. Engaging in gay relationships, the hackers releasing data, and the people who do the stoning. In the Manning/Snowden case, there are also three parts. The US doing bad things, Manning/Snowden releasing it, and other governments reacting. Now, in the Snowden/Manning case, media tries to place blame for 3 on 2 instead of 1, when blame should be placed on 1. In this case, people seem to be placing blame for 3 on 2, when blame should be placed on 3 (unless you fully believe that gay relationships should end in death, in which case it should be placed on 1, but few people on HN believe that). So there is a slight difference in that the blame should rest on the initial actor in the Snowden/Manning case while in this case the blame should be on the reacting actor (the ones killing people). But I think it is very similar in trying to blame the data release instead of the responsible party.
      - peejaybee 11y ago
        Let's say that the star-bellied Sneetches are rounding up the plain-bellied Sneetches and sending them to -- well, you're not exactly sure where they're sending them, but none of them have ever come back. Needless to say, the plain-bellied Sneetches don't think much of being rounded up, so they hide. A few star-bellied Sneetches sympathize with the plight of the plain-bellied Sneetches, and help them hide. Your neighbor is such a Sneetch, but is not careful enough, and you find out that there are a half-dozen plain-bellied Sneetches hiding in her basement. Fortunately, when the trucks come around at midnight, it's not your fault just because you've told everybody you know. It's the fault of those damn star-bellied Sneetches. I'm not sure where this leaves Snowden and Manning. I would probably argue that they exposed a greater evil than might have been perpetrated as a result of their disclosures. Impact Team, though -- snitchy Sneetches, all of them.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    No. Not at all.
  - ZoFreX 11y ago
    Well, there's plenty of blame to go around. For me it serves as a reminder that the right to privacy exists for many reasons, and that some of our users are more in need of security and protection than others - for some of them, digital security really is a matter of life and death. It reminds me that we should be careful with security, and also honest about what we can and can't do. Ashley Madison promised emails would _never_ be exposed - a promise they were either not willing or not able to keep.

by daemin 11y ago

Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? I'm sure more than a few would have joined, while pretending to be in one, and subsequently have started a relationship.

masklinn 11y ago

> Was there ever any requirement that one be in a relationship to join the site? No, it's only marketed/targeted towards that demo.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I always thought it would fun to join when I was single. Then I could be accused of being a dishonest immoral monster when my hookups discovered I wasn't really married.

ZoFreX 11y ago

According to this poster: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_stoned_to_death_for_gay_sex_gay_man/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/3ebzzj/i_may_get_ston... there is not a requirement to be in a relationship to use the site. And now he might die, because of the leak.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>And now he might die, because of the leak. Isn't this akin to blaming Snowden/Manning for diplomatic fallout instead of blaming those who were engaging in the wrongful practices that led to the fallout.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- smtddr 11y ago
  FYI, for others reading this comment: The wrongful practice implied here is the stoning, not being gay. Took me awhile to figure that out. I almost went on a rant.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    tl;dr: In this case, it is the people killing gays who are at fault for gays being killed. I see three parts. Engaging in gay relationships, the hackers releasing data, and the people who do the stoning. In the Manning/Snowden case, there are also three parts. The US doing bad things, Manning/Snowden releasing it, and other governments reacting. Now, in the Snowden/Manning case, media tries to place blame for 3 on 2 instead of 1, when blame should be placed on 1. In this case, people seem to be placing blame for 3 on 2, when blame should be placed on 3 (unless you fully believe that gay relationships should end in death, in which case it should be placed on 1, but few people on HN believe that). So there is a slight difference in that the blame should rest on the initial actor in the Snowden/Manning case while in this case the blame should be on the reacting actor (the ones killing people). But I think it is very similar in trying to blame the data release instead of the responsible party.
    - peejaybee 11y ago
      Let's say that the star-bellied Sneetches are rounding up the plain-bellied Sneetches and sending them to -- well, you're not exactly sure where they're sending them, but none of them have ever come back. Needless to say, the plain-bellied Sneetches don't think much of being rounded up, so they hide. A few star-bellied Sneetches sympathize with the plight of the plain-bellied Sneetches, and help them hide. Your neighbor is such a Sneetch, but is not careful enough, and you find out that there are a half-dozen plain-bellied Sneetches hiding in her basement. Fortunately, when the trucks come around at midnight, it's not your fault just because you've told everybody you know. It's the fault of those damn star-bellied Sneetches. I'm not sure where this leaves Snowden and Manning. I would probably argue that they exposed a greater evil than might have been perpetrated as a result of their disclosures. Impact Team, though -- snitchy Sneetches, all of them.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  No. Not at all.
- ZoFreX 11y ago
  Well, there's plenty of blame to go around. For me it serves as a reminder that the right to privacy exists for many reasons, and that some of our users are more in need of security and protection than others - for some of them, digital security really is a matter of life and death. It reminds me that we should be careful with security, and also honest about what we can and can't do. Ashley Madison promised emails would _never_ be exposed - a promise they were either not willing or not able to keep.