3 ms·

Incidentally, red face for the journalist, it turned out with regards to the Ashley Madison 'fake' profiles, the vast majority of them weren't fake.

meeper16 11y ago
That means the bots were real too.
cwyers 11y ago
Can you expand on this?
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Of course not, because it's false.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    You must be new around here if you think people can't expound at length about things that are false.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-... Care to apologise?
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      Wow, press releases from the company accused of fraudulently generating data in the first place -- how could I not be convinced by that evidence?
- mattmanser 11y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-... This refutation was widely reported, although unsurprisingly not as much as the original cockup.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Press statements aren't delivered under oath, I am not exactly going to take a press release with no details as gospel truth.
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      The gizmodo reporter herself admitted she was wrong. And then launched another attack to try and hide her cockup.
      - davidgerard 11y ago
        [citation still needed]
        pherq 11y ago
        The link is http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/ashley-madison-code-shows-more-women-and-more-bots/ http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/ashley-madison-code-shows-m... (which doesn't exactly paint Ashley Madison in glowing terms, despite the number of bots being lower than originally thought). While quite a lot more women used the service then the analyst initially thought, it is still true that AM did a lot to encourage men to pay them based on contact with fake accounts, and it apparently worked: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/one-chart-that-shows-how-much-money-ashley-madison-made-using-bots/ http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/one-chart-that-shows-how-mu...
        11y ago
davidgerard 11y ago
Citation needed. (I would be most interested.)
- mattmanser 11y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-...
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    That's a press release and reporting of a press release. It's a blank assertion it's false in the face of a research result. It carries no weight.
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      Gizmodo themselves admit they were wrong. The reporter originally claimed there were something like 5,000,000 women bots and 12,000 real women. Turns out the numbers were more like the other way around. I'm not linking to her article admitting her mistake as it's pathetic how she tries to cover up her mistake with more allegations based on incomplete data. This is a perfect example of why blogs shouldn't be relied on as news sources, and you're the one asking me for citations? Where are your citations?
      - davidgerard 11y ago
        You're citing something that you then refuse to cite. This is not a convincing argument in any way at all. You're behaving indistinguishably from someone just making shit up.

meeper16 11y ago

That means the bots were real too.

cwyers 11y ago

Can you expand on this?

emodendroket 11y ago
Of course not, because it's false.
- cwyers 11y ago
  You must be new around here if you think people can't expound at length about things that are false.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-... Care to apologise?
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Wow, press releases from the company accused of fraudulently generating data in the first place -- how could I not be convinced by that evidence?
mattmanser 11y ago
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-... This refutation was widely reported, although unsurprisingly not as much as the original cockup.
- cwyers 11y ago
  Press statements aren't delivered under oath, I am not exactly going to take a press release with no details as gospel truth.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    The gizmodo reporter herself admitted she was wrong. And then launched another attack to try and hide her cockup.
    - davidgerard 11y ago
      [citation still needed]
      - pherq 11y ago
        The link is http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/ashley-madison-code-shows-more-women-and-more-bots/ http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/ashley-madison-code-shows-m... (which doesn't exactly paint Ashley Madison in glowing terms, despite the number of bots being lower than originally thought). While quite a lot more women used the service then the analyst initially thought, it is still true that AM did a lot to encourage men to pay them based on contact with fake accounts, and it apparently worked: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/one-chart-that-shows-how-much-money-ashley-madison-made-using-bots/ http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/one-chart-that-shows-how-mu...
        11y ago

davidgerard 11y ago

Citation needed. (I would be most interested.)

mattmanser 11y ago
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-claims-that-its-site-was-populated-with-fake-female-accounts/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/31/ashley-madison-refutes-clai... http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-life-media-monday-august-31-2015-300135089.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-...
- davidgerard 11y ago
  That's a press release and reporting of a press release. It's a blank assertion it's false in the face of a research result. It carries no weight.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    Gizmodo themselves admit they were wrong. The reporter originally claimed there were something like 5,000,000 women bots and 12,000 real women. Turns out the numbers were more like the other way around. I'm not linking to her article admitting her mistake as it's pathetic how she tries to cover up her mistake with more allegations based on incomplete data. This is a perfect example of why blogs shouldn't be relied on as news sources, and you're the one asking me for citations? Where are your citations?
    - davidgerard 11y ago
      You're citing something that you then refuse to cite. This is not a convincing argument in any way at all. You're behaving indistinguishably from someone just making shit up.