Putting aside the issue of duping people with fake profiles and bots for a second, this is what I found the most interesting: "As I wrote last week, I came acr

Putting aside the issue of duping people with fake profiles and bots for a second, this is what I found the most interesting: "As I wrote last week, I came across three columns in one of those tables called “bc_email_last_time,” “bc_chat_last_time,” and “email_reply_last_time.” ... I concluded that the datestamps in those columns referred to the last time people checked their Ashley Madison messages, or tried to start a chat. ... But I was wrong. It’s a lot weirder than that. Those columns in the data don’t record human activity at all. They record the last time a bot—or “engager” in Ashley Madison’s internal parlance—emailed or chatted with a member of the site." So basically, all of those conclusions drawn in the previous article about 99% of the female accounts being inactive or fake were made based on a complete misunderstanding of the data. To their credit, they've done some deeper digging now and posted a correction on the other article, but after seeing so many other "news" sites unquestioningly repost the same flawed statistics, it just boggles my mind how quickly misinformation can spread. Not that I support the site and its scummy business practices, or its users and their scummy personal practices, but can we at least make sure we get the facts straight before breaking out the torches and pitchforks?