4 ms·

It is not a public company. So basically, they can say what they like. There is no need for them to prove their numbers (as long it is not advertisement). They

It is not a public company. So basically, they can say what they like. There is no need for them to prove their numbers (as long it is not advertisement). They probably also lied about their numbers on female members.

jessaustin 11y ago
If they ever said that fewer than 95% of female "members" were really prostitutes who wanted to advertise online, then yes, they lied about numbers on female members. It's easier for a website to stay open when claiming to cater to "cheating" than when truthfully admitting to cater to prostitution.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > They probably also lied about their numbers on female members. A friend of a friend said (read: no resource to back this claim up) that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. Leads me to ask: > Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week Do they mean that they added 100K users, or did 100K users sign up?
  - sbierwagen 11y ago
    that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. That was a Gawker article: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-ma... Most relevant graph: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302217017410.png https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302... 11,030,920 to 2,409
- eonw 11y ago
  that is quite the assumption considering that there are already many large sites to find escorts on for free.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Which of them match AM in terms of users, revenue, or ad spend? Craigslist had to change "erotic services" to "casual encounters", which ISTM is exactly what I'm talking about.
ceejayoz 11y ago
Being privately held doesn't mean you can defraud customers.
- einrealist 11y ago
  Indeed, but if I claim that such company defrauds their customers, I am the one who has to prove it - at least in the beginning, so that some district attorney can pickup the ball.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    A good starting point would be the "Over 40,330,000 anonymous members!" claim on their home page. A good 30+ million of those aren't anonymous anymore.
    - einrealist 11y ago
      Haha, you're right.
JonFish85 11y ago
The problem is, they were making noise about going public. In doing so, presumably people are looking very deeply into their books & numbers.
- einrealist 11y ago
  But until they file IPO papers, they can still say anything.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
There's also no reason to think that the 100,000 new accounts are any more real or sex-balanced than the previously existing ones. For all we know, they're telling the truth about their membership numbers but it's the memberships themselves that are fabrications. There's also the fact that accounts never get deleted, so the number of members can only ever increase regardless of whether actual use of the site's facilities is increasing or not. So many ways to game the system, so little time.

jessaustin 11y ago

If they ever said that fewer than 95% of female "members" were really prostitutes who wanted to advertise online, then yes, they lied about numbers on female members. It's easier for a website to stay open when claiming to cater to "cheating" than when truthfully admitting to cater to prostitution.

zamalek 11y ago
> They probably also lied about their numbers on female members. A friend of a friend said (read: no resource to back this claim up) that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. Leads me to ask: > Ashley Madison says it added over 100K users last week Do they mean that they added 100K users, or did 100K users sign up?
- sbierwagen 11y ago
  that someone dug into the data and found a vanishing small amount of real women. That was a Gawker article: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-ma... Most relevant graph: https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302217017410.png https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1410188302... 11,030,920 to 2,409
eonw 11y ago
that is quite the assumption considering that there are already many large sites to find escorts on for free.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Which of them match AM in terms of users, revenue, or ad spend? Craigslist had to change "erotic services" to "casual encounters", which ISTM is exactly what I'm talking about.

ceejayoz 11y ago

Being privately held doesn't mean you can defraud customers.

einrealist 11y ago
Indeed, but if I claim that such company defrauds their customers, I am the one who has to prove it - at least in the beginning, so that some district attorney can pickup the ball.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  A good starting point would be the "Over 40,330,000 anonymous members!" claim on their home page. A good 30+ million of those aren't anonymous anymore.
  - einrealist 11y ago
    Haha, you're right.

JonFish85 11y ago

The problem is, they were making noise about going public. In doing so, presumably people are looking very deeply into their books & numbers.

einrealist 11y ago
But until they file IPO papers, they can still say anything.

fredkbloggs 11y ago

There's also no reason to think that the 100,000 new accounts are any more real or sex-balanced than the previously existing ones. For all we know, they're telling the truth about their membership numbers but it's the memberships themselves that are fabrications. There's also the fact that accounts never get deleted, so the number of members can only ever increase regardless of whether actual use of the site's facilities is increasing or not. So many ways to game the system, so little time.