5 ms·

Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to

Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about hooking into people's desire to seek taboo and then be exorbitant with charging them fees, even for terminating an account. It was, in no minced words, a con. Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern.

humanrebar 11y ago
> Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?
- jchrisa 11y ago
  A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Married people's thoughts on monogamy are irrelevant. The argument was that the breach of contract is no one else's business except for the two parties to that contract. This was rebutted by someone claiming that they hold value in knowledge about another's breach of a contract. What I don't understand is the reasoning that says a breach of contract is only meaningful to the parties of the contract. If someone is influenced by knowledge that someone breached another contract, then that knowledge is meaningful outside the confines of the contract.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Well, I reviewed the argument that I was referring to and it wasn't what you are claiming. Here's the text: >Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. The argument claimed that the breach was "of absolutely no relevance". Yes, the word "meaningful" wasn't used, but I dare you to provide a definition of the word "meaningful". >The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be. Can you point me to someone making that argument?
        icebraining 11y ago
        I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. I can see where one might read it differently, though, but I confess I fail to see the point in discussing from that POV.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Eh, there's very little here that has much point in discussion. I only wanted to point out that this particular sub-thread was going off the rails (as many are, but I can't respond to all of them due to time constraints and HN's hard rate limit). The information can't be destroyed now, so there is little point in discussions about what should or shouldn't have happened in this specific instance. If someone breached a contract and this provides evidence to those ends, then it's simply a fact. I completely understand that facts can upset people. If someone didn't breach a contract...well I'm not sure what the worry is in this specific instance. In any case, it obviously sucks when information you gave in trust is leaked out and there is certainly a lesson to learn in data security here. There also seems to be a lesson to perhaps not trust companies who apparently fundamentally produce and specifically market a trust violation product. Of course, if you are in the market for such a product, formal calculation of your preference function may not be a priority. >I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. This makes it sounds like vezzy-fnord is arguing for some kind of thought control regime; a regime where one may selectively engineer the exact perception to create in others. If someone can perceive something, they should be able to contemplate it. Just as it is a couple's prerogative to seek court mediation for their breached contracts (this is the right the argument afforded the couple), it is another's prerogative to act on information that is known to them.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  If your philosophy involves your opinions mattering in people's private concerns, no, it's not valid.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    No. I think marriages actually affect people not involved in the marriage commitment itself. Especially when you consider populations and not just hypothetical individuals.
    - Absentinsomniac 11y ago
      Yeah, but what does that have to do with random unassociated outside observers? Are you saying society at large has some kind of right to intimate details of personal relationships?
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        I'm saying it's impossible, especially across large populations, to assert that infidelity is wholly a private matter. It's a compelling notion that doesn't stand up to facts. Be sure to consider things like STD rates, unplanned pregnancy rates, rates of single parenthood, divorces resulting from infidelity, and so on. I can assert that this data breach is immoral while also asserting that infidelity, especially organized infidelity, is not simply an intimate detail. I'm not sure why everyone feels compelled to square off into two camps on every issue.
nostrebored 11y ago
Having morals also means speaking out about things when it is your concern. 37 Million (of course potentially non-unique) accounts on a website advertised with the express intent of cheating on your spouse with nobody knowing is fucked up. It's a sleazy website run by sleazy people with sleazy business practices, used by people who are trying to do something which their spouse VERY LIKELY disagrees with. Of course there are portions of the AM leak which are bad, like the gay men in Saudi Arabia, but pretending that this is the norm and not the exception is feeding a delusion. Just because a small portion of the website does not follow the same perogative does not mean that we should derail the discussion from the main issue. An epidemic of cheating over the internet is a concern for people who intend to get married. Estabilshing strong social taboos here is not some awful thing.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Raw numbers aren't of much use here. You need to also gauge intent and opportunity, which is much harder, and at least in the case of opportunity, there was virtually none. You can't do that, so just stay the hell out. "An epidemic of cheating over the internet". My God, do you think adultery was invented recently? This is a classic fallacy of blaming the mere institutions as opposed to the root cause.
  - nostrebored 11y ago
    The intent when you register on a website designed for cheating on your spouse seems pretty clear to me. If you found your spouse registering for AM would you assume that it was just to see if they had a sleek UI? Hook-up culture has always existed as well, but let's not pretend that Tinder hasn't changed the pace/availability of hooking up. In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn't facilitated people comitting adultery.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn't facilitated people comitting adultery. In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the Internet hasn't facilitated people engaging in terrorist activity and drug trade. When do we build the firewall, captain?
solipsism 11y ago
Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern That's fundamental to your moral framework. It may even be fundamental to the moral norms in US or Western culture. But it's not fundamental to everybody's. It's by no means objective. That's why we have objective laws to go by. Talking about morals means realizing everyone has different morals. Of what use is it to argue whether cheating or hacking or meddling in the business of others or vigilante justice is or isn't moral in general?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  That's why we have objective laws to go by. Which as far as I know were violated.
  - solipsism 11y ago
    Right! Glad we could all find common ground.

humanrebar 11y ago

> Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. That's one way to look at things. I happen to have a different philosophy about marriage, that it actually does affect other people, and since you're so understanding, I'm sure you'll grant that my philosophy is equally valid.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Well, I'd like to hear you actually elaborate on your differing philosophy. That'd be helpful.
tedunangst 11y ago
Wasn't there some other difference of opinion regarding the philosophy of marriage recently?
jchrisa 11y ago
A little reading would let you know that there is a significant chunk of happily married people who don't think monogamy is for them. They think honesty is more important. I don't know if these folks are AM users or if they've got a better scene.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Married people's thoughts on monogamy are irrelevant. The argument was that the breach of contract is no one else's business except for the two parties to that contract. This was rebutted by someone claiming that they hold value in knowledge about another's breach of a contract. What I don't understand is the reasoning that says a breach of contract is only meaningful to the parties of the contract. If someone is influenced by knowledge that someone breached another contract, then that knowledge is meaningful outside the confines of the contract.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Well, I reviewed the argument that I was referring to and it wasn't what you are claiming. Here's the text: >Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. The argument claimed that the breach was "of absolutely no relevance". Yes, the word "meaningful" wasn't used, but I dare you to provide a definition of the word "meaningful". >The argument isn't that it isn't meaningful, it's that it shouldn't be. Can you point me to someone making that argument?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. I can see where one might read it differently, though, but I confess I fail to see the point in discussing from that POV.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Eh, there's very little here that has much point in discussion. I only wanted to point out that this particular sub-thread was going off the rails (as many are, but I can't respond to all of them due to time constraints and HN's hard rate limit). The information can't be destroyed now, so there is little point in discussions about what should or shouldn't have happened in this specific instance. If someone breached a contract and this provides evidence to those ends, then it's simply a fact. I completely understand that facts can upset people. If someone didn't breach a contract...well I'm not sure what the worry is in this specific instance. In any case, it obviously sucks when information you gave in trust is leaked out and there is certainly a lesson to learn in data security here. There also seems to be a lesson to perhaps not trust companies who apparently fundamentally produce and specifically market a trust violation product. Of course, if you are in the market for such a product, formal calculation of your preference function may not be a priority. >I'd say the part where vezzy-fnord talks about the couple's "prerogative" and "things that are none of your concern" set the context in terms of moral rights, not whether it can possible affect the other person. This makes it sounds like vezzy-fnord is arguing for some kind of thought control regime; a regime where one may selectively engineer the exact perception to create in others. If someone can perceive something, they should be able to contemplate it. Just as it is a couple's prerogative to seek court mediation for their breached contracts (this is the right the argument afforded the couple), it is another's prerogative to act on information that is known to them.
oldmanjay 11y ago
If your philosophy involves your opinions mattering in people's private concerns, no, it's not valid.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  No. I think marriages actually affect people not involved in the marriage commitment itself. Especially when you consider populations and not just hypothetical individuals.
  - Absentinsomniac 11y ago
    Yeah, but what does that have to do with random unassociated outside observers? Are you saying society at large has some kind of right to intimate details of personal relationships?
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      I'm saying it's impossible, especially across large populations, to assert that infidelity is wholly a private matter. It's a compelling notion that doesn't stand up to facts. Be sure to consider things like STD rates, unplanned pregnancy rates, rates of single parenthood, divorces resulting from infidelity, and so on. I can assert that this data breach is immoral while also asserting that infidelity, especially organized infidelity, is not simply an intimate detail. I'm not sure why everyone feels compelled to square off into two camps on every issue.

nostrebored 11y ago

Having morals also means speaking out about things when it is your concern. 37 Million (of course potentially non-unique) accounts on a website advertised with the express intent of cheating on your spouse with nobody knowing is fucked up. It's a sleazy website run by sleazy people with sleazy business practices, used by people who are trying to do something which their spouse VERY LIKELY disagrees with. Of course there are portions of the AM leak which are bad, like the gay men in Saudi Arabia, but pretending that this is the norm and not the exception is feeding a delusion. Just because a small portion of the website does not follow the same perogative does not mean that we should derail the discussion from the main issue. An epidemic of cheating over the internet is a concern for people who intend to get married. Estabilshing strong social taboos here is not some awful thing.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Raw numbers aren't of much use here. You need to also gauge intent and opportunity, which is much harder, and at least in the case of opportunity, there was virtually none. You can't do that, so just stay the hell out. "An epidemic of cheating over the internet". My God, do you think adultery was invented recently? This is a classic fallacy of blaming the mere institutions as opposed to the root cause.
- nostrebored 11y ago
  The intent when you register on a website designed for cheating on your spouse seems pretty clear to me. If you found your spouse registering for AM would you assume that it was just to see if they had a sleek UI? Hook-up culture has always existed as well, but let's not pretend that Tinder hasn't changed the pace/availability of hooking up. In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn't facilitated people comitting adultery.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the internet hasn't facilitated people comitting adultery. In the same light, let's not pretend that the anonymity of the Internet hasn't facilitated people engaging in terrorist activity and drug trade. When do we build the firewall, captain?

solipsism 11y ago

Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern That's fundamental to your moral framework. It may even be fundamental to the moral norms in US or Western culture. But it's not fundamental to everybody's. It's by no means objective. That's why we have objective laws to go by. Talking about morals means realizing everyone has different morals. Of what use is it to argue whether cheating or hacking or meddling in the business of others or vigilante justice is or isn't moral in general?

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
That's why we have objective laws to go by. Which as far as I know were violated.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Right! Glad we could all find common ground.