5 ms·

Can you expand on this?

by cwyers 11y ago

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...
        davidgerard 11y ago
        Indeed. "What I have learned from examining the site’s the source code is that Ashley Madison’s army of fembots appears to have been a sophisticated, deliberate, and lucrative fraud. The code tells the story of a company trying to weave the illusion that women on the site were plentiful and eager. Whatever the total number of real, active female Ashley Madison users is, the company was clearly on a desperate quest to design legions of fake women to interact with the men on the site." Ashley Madison was still a sad, exploitative scam.
- bmm6o 11y ago
  That TechCrunch article actually provides several reasons why you should not believe the press release. Did you think it supported your claims?

Can you expand on this?

by 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...
      - davidgerard 11y ago
        Indeed. "What I have learned from examining the site’s the source code is that Ashley Madison’s army of fembots appears to have been a sophisticated, deliberate, and lucrative fraud. The code tells the story of a company trying to weave the illusion that women on the site were plentiful and eager. Whatever the total number of real, active female Ashley Madison users is, the company was clearly on a desperate quest to design legions of fake women to interact with the men on the site." Ashley Madison was still a sad, exploitative scam.
bmm6o 11y ago
That TechCrunch article actually provides several reasons why you should not believe the press release. Did you think it supported your claims?