5 ms·

Let me tell you this, I worked in the adult industry and I absolutely despised working with dating sites. Ashley Madison, Adult Friend Finder, etc because of th

Let me tell you this, I worked in the adult industry and I absolutely despised working with dating sites. Ashley Madison, Adult Friend Finder, etc because of this issue. They employed hundreds of staff who's main job was to pretend to be interested women messaging non-paying members enticing them to upgrade their free memberships to be able to respond back or what-have-you-not and then once the customer was paying, they stopped and moved onto the next. That's shady business no matter what you think. I personally have zero empathy for Ashley Madison and for what's happening to them. Edit:// Adult Friend Finder actually pays an absurdly higher payout for referrals whom happen to be women, because they don't get many women signing up.

wmeredith 11y ago
How is this not considered fraud?
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Proving it would require the cooperation of witnesses and aggrieved parties who would be publicly embarrassed if they were to provide testimony. So it's usually safer to cheat someone if you can do so in a manner that would also humiliate them if their role in the con was exposed. They discount what they lost by the price of their own dignity and reputation.
  - reagency 11y ago
    That is true, but the world is big and there are people who (1) wouldn't be ashamed, (2) could do it as an intentional investigation. And the crooks can't detect those people in advance.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > How is this not considered fraud? It's in the fine print usually that some accounts are there for "entertainment purposes". I think it would be naive to not suspect these sites of having a very skewed male subscribership in addition to using chat bots or paid people to engage customers.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      > Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud. You agree to the terms and conditions upon account creation, even if you don't read them. A person's ignorance and naivety is not evidence of fraud.
      - byset 11y ago
        The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Plus you can't rely on fine print in the T&C to absolve you of engaging in a fraudulent business relationship, that's not how contracts are enforced.
        Alupis 11y ago
        > The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Nor did the T&C say or imply that any percent of the account will be genuine, or that there would be plenty of male and female accounts. The customers paid for the ability to read messages sent to them by anyone (employee, bot or real person), nothing more. Assuming something when you've been explicitly told otherwise but chose to ignore it does not equate to fraud. A person's naivety and ignorance don't equate to being defrauded.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        What? Their landing page says: >Ashley Madison is the most famous name in infidelity and married dating. Their Google ads say: >Have an affair -- Guaranteed Only conclusion to draw here is that you are a bot.
        11y ago
- adevine 11y ago
  Note the Ashley Madison wiki page says that these BS accounts are actually presented in the terms and conditions. I'm kind of impressed with the hutzpah of even giving these fake accounts the name "Ashley's Angels": Several aspects of Ashley Madison are described in the Terms and Conditions as "For Your Entertainment."[19] This included Ashley's Angels, a feature that generated fictitious profiles to simulate communication with real members and perform market research. According to the site, Ashley's Angels accounts "are NOT conspicuously identified as such."[20] Ashley's Angels profiles were limited to messaging only guest accounts and users could opt out of the feature via their profile management page. Users were charged the standard rate to read messages from and chat with these fictitious profiles.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Actually, I can sort of accept that. I'm sure people would be upset to find they were chatting with a fictitious account, but I'm also sure AM made the chats entertaining and flattering. The question is whether they actively lead the men to believe there was a real chance of a hookup, and how much leading is bad and how much is normal and how a flirtatious women would act? I guess AM would actually have stats on that based on real female profiles.
    - byset 11y ago
      The highest paid tier, for $249, includes an "Affair Guarantee." You could still claim that even so, men are just paying for a fantasy, but at those prices, and with the supposed "guarantee," they seem to venturing into fraud territory.
      - anaptdemise 11y ago
        This is the study of human nature in all this that I find most amusing. For $249, there are much more straight forward and guaranteed ways to have an affair. Even if affair is not insinuating sex, which I'm pretty sure most guys would assume, how is this not paying for sex in their mind? One would also assume the few real women are most likely prostitutes/escorts anyways.

wmeredith 11y ago

How is this not considered fraud?

logfromblammo 11y ago
Proving it would require the cooperation of witnesses and aggrieved parties who would be publicly embarrassed if they were to provide testimony. So it's usually safer to cheat someone if you can do so in a manner that would also humiliate them if their role in the con was exposed. They discount what they lost by the price of their own dignity and reputation.
- reagency 11y ago
  That is true, but the world is big and there are people who (1) wouldn't be ashamed, (2) could do it as an intentional investigation. And the crooks can't detect those people in advance.
Alupis 11y ago
> How is this not considered fraud? It's in the fine print usually that some accounts are there for "entertainment purposes". I think it would be naive to not suspect these sites of having a very skewed male subscribership in addition to using chat bots or paid people to engage customers.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > Placing some text in tiny print does not absolve you of fraud. It may actually be evidence of fraud. You agree to the terms and conditions upon account creation, even if you don't read them. A person's ignorance and naivety is not evidence of fraud.
    - byset 11y ago
      The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Plus you can't rely on fine print in the T&C to absolve you of engaging in a fraudulent business relationship, that's not how contracts are enforced.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        > The T&C did not say or imply that ~100% of the womens' accounts were fake. Nor did the T&C say or imply that any percent of the account will be genuine, or that there would be plenty of male and female accounts. The customers paid for the ability to read messages sent to them by anyone (employee, bot or real person), nothing more. Assuming something when you've been explicitly told otherwise but chose to ignore it does not equate to fraud. A person's naivety and ignorance don't equate to being defrauded.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        What? Their landing page says: >Ashley Madison is the most famous name in infidelity and married dating. Their Google ads say: >Have an affair -- Guaranteed Only conclusion to draw here is that you are a bot.
        11y ago
adevine 11y ago
Note the Ashley Madison wiki page says that these BS accounts are actually presented in the terms and conditions. I'm kind of impressed with the hutzpah of even giving these fake accounts the name "Ashley's Angels": Several aspects of Ashley Madison are described in the Terms and Conditions as "For Your Entertainment."[19] This included Ashley's Angels, a feature that generated fictitious profiles to simulate communication with real members and perform market research. According to the site, Ashley's Angels accounts "are NOT conspicuously identified as such."[20] Ashley's Angels profiles were limited to messaging only guest accounts and users could opt out of the feature via their profile management page. Users were charged the standard rate to read messages from and chat with these fictitious profiles.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Actually, I can sort of accept that. I'm sure people would be upset to find they were chatting with a fictitious account, but I'm also sure AM made the chats entertaining and flattering. The question is whether they actively lead the men to believe there was a real chance of a hookup, and how much leading is bad and how much is normal and how a flirtatious women would act? I guess AM would actually have stats on that based on real female profiles.
  - byset 11y ago
    The highest paid tier, for $249, includes an "Affair Guarantee." You could still claim that even so, men are just paying for a fantasy, but at those prices, and with the supposed "guarantee," they seem to venturing into fraud territory.
    - anaptdemise 11y ago
      This is the study of human nature in all this that I find most amusing. For $249, there are much more straight forward and guaranteed ways to have an affair. Even if affair is not insinuating sex, which I'm pretty sure most guys would assume, how is this not paying for sex in their mind? One would also assume the few real women are most likely prostitutes/escorts anyways.