Ashley Madison Source Code Shows Evidence They Created Bots To Message Men 311
An anonymous reader writes: Gizmodo's Annalee Newitz looked through the source code contained in the recent Ashley Madison data dump and found evidence that the company created tens of thousands of bot accounts designed to spur their male users into action by sending them messages. "The code tells the story of a company trying to weave the illusion that women on the site were plentiful and eager." The evidence suggests bots sent over 20 million messages on the website, and chatted with people over 11 million times. The vast majority of fake accounts — 70,529 to 43 — pretended to be female, and the users targeted were almost entirely men. Comments left in the code indicate some of the issues Ashley Madison's engineers had to solve: "randomizing start time so engagers don't all pop up at the same time" and "for every single state that has guest males, we want to have a chat engager." The AI was unsophisticated, though one type of bot would try to convince men to pay and then pass them to a real person.
How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, before you sign up you have to agree to terms of service, and somewhere hidden deep in the fine print is some incredibly vague sentence like "all interactions between users are purely for entertainment purposes only" which, if necessary in a court of law, they can easily construe to mean that the users agreed to be lied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, sorry that wouldn't be vague enough. It would be probably more something like "all interactions between users and [the website] are for entertainment purposes only."
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Other Aspects of the Ashley Madison Service – For Your Entertainment
Our Site and our Service gives users the opportunity to explore their fantasies and to interact with others in the Site. However, there is no guarantee you will find a date or partner on our Site or using our Service. Our Site and our Service also is geared to provide you with amusement and entertainment. You agree that some of the features of our Site and our Service are intended to provide entertainment.
Others Using the Site for Entertainment
You also understand and agree that there are users and members on the Site that use and subscribe to our Service for purely entertainment purposes. Those users and subscribers are not seeking physical meetings with anyone they meet on the Service, but consider their communications with users and members to be for their amusement.
You acknowledge and agree that any profiles of users and members, as well as, communications from such persons may not be true, accurate or authentic and may be exaggerated or fantasy. You acknowledge and understand that you may be communicating with such persons and that we are not responsible for such communications.
Of course, in another section the prohibit you from using bots, and in another section, prohibit you from using fake profile pictures. So the only ones who could be doing these things..............
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't expect that to hold up very well with them repeatedly using words like 'subscribers' and 'persons'. I don't think bots would qualify for either definition.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would never hold up in a UK court, I'm certain of that. T&Cs don't override a reasonable person's expectations of a service.
For example, years ago I sent a package overseas. I paid Royal Mail for tracking and insurance. The package was lost and they couldn't tell me what happened to it. They argued that the T&Cs, which were far too long to read standing at the counter in the post office and were not explained to be by their staff, stated that the tracking stops at the UK border and as such so does the insurance. The judge dismissed their argument immediately, because the service is advertised as being tracked and insured. They would have had to clearly advertise that massive gaping hole prominently if they wanted to enforce it.
I really hope someone does take them to court to get their money back.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Informative)
A UK court will ignore that. Such clauses are unenforceable in the UK, they can't remove your right to use your local small claims court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Funny)
LOL, talk about these guys being taken for a ride!
I think the problem is that the guys were not likely to get taken for a ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the more vague sentences that seem to cover the bots:
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Emphasis mine in both cases. The use of the phrase "in the site" caught my attention right away. Is that a reference to their bots, who are literally in the site. "On the site" is what I usually hear, and they clearly know that version since they use it elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
At least where I'm at, the law says that a contract unilaterally phrased by one side needs to be interpreted, in a court of law, in the way most detrimental to that side. Under those conditions, the question is not how AM can construe the phrase, but how the plaintiff can construe it.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's legal because none of the husbands trying to cheat on their wives will ever publicly complain, ever, not even now that it has been exposed, bwa ha ha ha.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe so, but I would imagine a lot of single men were on the site as well, looking for easy hookups with those frustrated and lonely housewives.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's legal because none of the husbands trying to cheat on their wives will ever publicly complain, ever, not even now that it has been exposed, bwa ha ha ha.
If they had an affair through AM, got caught and divorced because of that, not only might they complain but they would be much more likely to.
That said, it comes back round to the fact that there were so few actual women on the site that there likely weren't many actual affairs that were arranged.
Re: (Score:2)
That's irrelevant. Criminal complaints (you only need one person to file a complaint) are investigated by the police, and prosecuted by the public prosecutor in criminal court. They're entirely different from lawsuits. The prosecutor can even pursue a case even when the victim refuses to cooperate (though they usually don't, because that makes it hard to win the case); that's why that stuff about "pressing charge" on TV shows is a bunch of bullshit. Crime victims have zero legal power over whether someo
Re: (Score:2)
It's never irrelevant when it is satire, the joke is the nature of the fraud and the nature of the victims ie cheating the cheaters ;D.
Re: (Score:2)
"How is this legal? Tricking people into paying for accounts by convincing them that someone is trying to message them would be fraud, wouldn't it?"
Then convincing somebody that they look beautiful and sexy in those skinny jeans would be fraud too.
Caveat emptor.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
How is this legal? Tricking people into paying for accounts by convincing them that someone is trying to message them would be fraud, wouldn't it?
I for one am outraged that people who facilitate adultery are anything but honest and above board!
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it's almost like they cheated.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically what AM was charging for is to remove accounts that people suddenly regretted making. There are a lot of unhappy marriages out there, and who knows the motive of every person that signed up for that site. However I'm pretty sure that people figured out pretty quick that the women weren't real. Then they were left with the realization that they made a stupid decision. So AM would happily remove their account for a fee.
The thing is it looks like in most cases they actually didn't remove the
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Once corporations won the right to have a license which says anything they want, and which they can change any time they want ... legal is whatever the hell they say it is.
Fraudulent and deceptive practices? Read the license.
Shady behavior designed to fool you into thinking you're being chatted up so you'll subscribe? Read the license.
They basically got carte blanche to do anything they want to, any time they want to.
And, really, from what I'm seeing they were also doing some shady dealings in terms of h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only fruit of the poisonous tree if the police hack it without a warrant. In point of fact, stolen stuff is used as evidence against the theft victim all the time.
This should result in a very thorough investigation in to AM, including warrants for copies of all source code and backups (and when it turns out the bots have been removed since the hack, that's another charge of destroying evidence). Seem unlikely it will, but it certainly should.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no poisonous tree. The police did not perform the search. Since the person who stole the code was un-affilliated with the police it can be used in court as evidence if someone were to spin up a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be used so far as requesting a warrant for access to the actual software for the police to confirm these findings, which can then be used in a court as evidence - especially as the source of these leaks is obviously partial/biased against Ashley Madison. Remember when the hackers told them to cease operations immediately or have the data leaked?.
Yet another armchair asshole that doesn't realise that there are hundreds of major differences between a civil and a criminal case. Now granted, I'm no lawyer myself; but I've been involved in enough instances of both scenarios to know that you are completely wrong on every single point that you posted here. Fraud is a tort, that means it's a legal dispute between two private parties and the US government is not involved beyond impartial mediation and, if necessary, enforcement of the result. Private partie
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not, but up to the hack they strictly obeyed to the 11th commandments ("Thou shall not get caught").
But, how do you want to prove it; you can't use the hacked data ("Fruit of the poisonous tree")...
"Poison tree" argument also doesn't apply to Canadian law. Courts regularly use "poisoned" evidence here. That said, there's no case because they include this clause in their terms:
Other Aspects of the Ashley Madison Service – For Your Entertainment
Our Site and our Service gives users the opportunity to explore their fantasies and to interact with others in the Site. However, there is no guarantee you will find a date or partner on our Site or using our Service. Our Site and our Service also is geared to provide you with amusement and entertainment. You agree that some of the features of our Site and our Service are intended to provide entertainment.
In Canadian law as long as you disclose that it's for entertainment purposes only you can get away with a lot more. It's how psychic/erotic phone lines and such get around laws that would otherwise make it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
In Canadian law as long as you disclose that it's for entertainment purposes only you can get away with a lot more. It's how psychic/erotic phone lines and such get around laws that would otherwise make it illegal.
Haha, it's 'performance' art!
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4)
"Poison tree" argument also doesn't apply to Canadian law. Courts regularly use "poisoned" evidence here. That said, there's no case because they include this clause in their terms:
Yes and no. Section 24.2 of the Charter states,
It depends on a few things, from wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many people do you think read all of the T&Cs? How many people do you know who have read the Facebook T&Cs, for example (I know two, but I don't know anyone who has both read them and agreed to them)?
So you're going with the "I didn't read the contract before I signed it so I'm not bound by it" defence?
Whether you read them is not very interesting legally. What matters is that you agreed to them which, if you signed up, I'm betting you must have done. Typically the only protection you have in one-sided T&Cs like these is that they're interpreted as much as possible in favour of the consumer. That's in addition to "unconscionable" clauses being void.
There really needs to be some stronger consumer
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people can actually understand the T&Cs? Interesting video on the subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The guy in the video is an academic who developed software for determining the reading ability needed to understand text. He checked the terms and conditions on many sites and services and found that often a post-graduate (Masters/PhD) level education was required just to understand them, assuming you could be bothered to even read a document longer than Hamlet and take the time to fully appreciate the ramifications of agreeing to it.
UK courts usually determine clauses that are too complex for a "reasonable person" to understand as void. It's a failure to communicate by the writer.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, IRTFA; all I can say is, "self medication is flawed."
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey My wife Eliza is hot!
How do you really feel about your wife Eliza is hot?
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, they could have made a packet shorting the stock.
Re:match.com (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly true. Match.com seemed to be legit 10+ years ago, but these days it's a total scam. I signed up for an account there recently (since I'm back in the market and all....), since I wasn't getting far on OKCupid, thinking I'd try a different site to see if there was a different crowd of women there. It completely reeked of being a scam; I never did give them any money, thankfully, but the signs were pretty obvious. First, while it was possible to fill out your profile for free and look at others', so many things required a paid account: receiving mail, seeing who "liked" you, etc. And second, just how many "likes" and emails I received, even though I hadn't mailed anyone else. For a month or two after signing up, I was barraged with emails saying I had received personal messages from women, that tons of women had "liked" me, etc. Yeah, bullshit. I've been on OKC more than long enough to know that men almost never receive unsolicited messages from women (and when they do, those women usually aren't too desirable, sorry to say). There's no way I'm getting tons of emails from beautiful women after sticking up a profile and a couple of photos and doing little else. Anyway, I kept getting emails from match.com for 2-3 months after this, constantly trying to get me to come back, pay money to read these supposed messages, etc., but it finally stopped.
As far as I can tell, most of these dating sites these days are scams. OKCupid seems to be completely legit; I haven't seen anything that reeks of fakery there, however the male:female ratio is of course poor as you'd expect and women who are at all desirable get bombarded with messages from men. From what I've read, eHarmony seems to be legit, but it's also completely geared towards conservative Christians so if you're not one of those, then don't bother. AFAICT, Tinder is completely legit too, but it's not a site at all, really more of a hookup app and because of its lack of detailed profiles, doesn't facilitate finding compatible partners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess it's not legal, but very few people would seriously consider suing them, not just to avoid drawing attention to themselves, but simply because it's not really worthwhile initiating legal proceedings over a matter of a few dollars.
If it's a crime (fraud), then lawsuits are completely irrelevant. This is basic civics. Lawsuits are over torts, not crimes.
SO? (Score:4, Informative)
What online game community doesn't have NPC's?
Re: (Score:2)
What online game community doesn't have NPC's?
The small difference being that the customer knows that they are NPCs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What are you talking about? We have the Cows guy, the Golden Girls guy, the lone remaining GNAA troll, APK, roman_mir, ... the list is endless!
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? We have the Cows guy, the Golden Girls guy, the lone remaining GNAA troll, APK, roman_mir, ... the list is endless!
You left out the mycleanpc bot.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about Slashdot? ;) online game community?
Stop the presses! (Score:5, Insightful)
Men looking to get laid got lied to and exploited.
News at 11.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the AM ratio? 1000 to 1 or maybe worse. >20M guys is a decent sample size for the "claiming to be attached looking to cheat" demographic. Women didn't fall as easily for it, despite their access being free!
I'm really starting to wonder HOW that conservative hypocrite actually managed to get in so much trouble, when the odds were so crazy low.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't at all be surprised if, in the final analysis, they discover that the so-called 'data breach' was perpetrated by the owners of Ashley Madison themselves, and that it was always their plan to blackmail their clientele.
exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay (Score:5, Informative)
As OK Cupid pointed out, you should never pay for ANY online dating., The economic model is against you. http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating.html
Soon after publishing that famous essay the site was bought by a paid for dating site: it remains free, but had to take that essay down (this is a cached version)
I met my wife on OK Cupid, and her anecdotal experience confirms that paid for sites are the pits. On paid for sites she was always being hassled by obnoxious men, but free sites (POF, OKC) are much quicker to delete bad accounts. Dating sites get most of their money from desperate men paying large amounts every month. It's easy to keep them coming via fake female accounts. Even large "reputable" companies do it, and have been caught out on TV shows. Heck you can check it yourself: sign up for a paid for dating site, put the photos into Google image search, and see how long it takes before you get a fake. But sexual desperation is such that men will still go there,
Re:exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck you can check it yourself: sign up for a paid for dating site, put the photos into Google image search, and see how long it takes before you get a fake. But sexual desperation is such that men will still go there,
I'll do you even one better.. TINEYE plugin [tineye.com] ... just right click and search the image on tineye.. saves a lot of hassle for many reasons.. dating only being one of them
Re:exhibit A: OK Cupid's famous essay (Score:5, Interesting)
The site that bought them, match.com, feels horribly scammy as well.
I've tried four dating websites - two paid, two free.
Paid :
* match.com - vast majority of female profiles dead (filter by last login date and the pool dries up immensely), telltale signs that many of the profiles are bots
I got dates from match, but they weren't really good matches
* elitesingles - just not enough members to justify using it, it's chosen "exclusivity" image works against it
Unpaid :
* plenty of fish - I got dates but it seems the majority of people on here are looking for hookups, not relationships
* OKCupid - the only one I recommend. I gave them money, voluntarily, because I liked their business model. I hope being owned by match.com hasn't messed with that.
I also don't know if it's a cultural thing - match.com mostly had what I'd think of as normal average people (the kind of people I met speed dating), OKCupid was either much better at matching me with people of similar temperament (nerdy girls, basically), or just attracts that kind of crowd.
Met a very lovely woman on OKC and we've been dating for nigh on 18 months now and very much in love. It took a lot of disheartening persistence and slogging though - online dating concentrates the normal feelings of social rejection into a kind of burning vitriol that eats at the soul. But when you have a personality type that's less than 1% of the population it's the smart move - there was just no way I was going to meet enough women to find someone compatible (statistically speaking) in my existing social network.
Re: (Score:2)
It strikes me that dating generally is imbalanced by the very nature of the combination of gender and culture.
Online dating would seem to be more so because some significant percentage of the women don't find offline dating hard enough to make the effort.
For those that do try it, the social/gender pattern of male initiation means women's smaller numbers are deluged with interest, reducing their numbers further either via successful matches or via disinterest with the nature of the responses.
Men paying for o
Re: (Score:2)
culling accounts after a period of time under the assumption that despite near-even odds and following the rules, those people were unmatchable for some reason or other.
Boy, that would be rough. "We're deleting your account because by now, statistically speaking, someone should have loved you. But no one does, and no one ever will."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that my made up example would be difficult to actually pull off in practice, although who knows. There may be enough women who are turned off by the meat market aspect of other dating sites that a service with a zero tolerance for weird behavior might find it appealing. And both sexes may find the idea that "the system" automatically weeds out inactive or unsuccessful daters appealing, knowing that they will be much less likely to waste time on "losers".
I think there are some "higher end" in
Turing Test (Score:5, Funny)
It would be amusing if the first bot to pass a turing test is from a dating website rather than a university.
Re: (Score:3)
It tricks you by making you so horny you don't care if it's real or fake anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a chatbot a while ago that "passed" a turing test by claiming that English wasn't its first language. This situation is kind of similar. Most of the comments were things like "lol hi how r u lol"; in other words, the bots were acting generally unintelligible to lower the expectations of the people who interacted with them.
Pretending to be a person who can't pass a turing test is cheating on a real turing test.
Common practice in the "adult" biz. (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn/cam/sexchat sites regularly do this too, and probably pretty much 100% of the rest of the adult on-line hook-up/dating sites as well. Sorry guys, melonsacidhoney69 isn't real. Neither is Pro Wrestling. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who actually falls for this stuff pretty much deserves to be scammed, we need to breed such people out of the gene pool.
And here's the real success of the bots. They're actually performing a community service here!
The bots are real and will message anything (Score:5, Informative)
KFI morning host Bill Handel created an Ashley Madison account:
handle: smallpenis640
weight: 220
height: 4'4"
picture: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
He had 3 interested 'women' messaging him in under an hour. And of course you have to pay to message back. This is where most of their money comes from.
Not sure what happened after that, but yeah, AM, all those 'real women' that 'really' use your site.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they appreciated his honesty?
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:3)
What would be really nice... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They made a website where men sign up and pay them money while handing over their own blackmail material. It's brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.
What the fuck dude?! (Score:3)
I have all the qualities such women love:
I'm slightly out of shape, I've slightly overweight, I'm bald, middle-aged, married and desperate to get laid but cannot afford a prostitute.
Are you seriously saying that the 22 year old professional playboy model, Courtney from L.A. isn't real??
...but she sent me pictures!
Horn-E-Tron (Score:5, Interesting)
In the 90's I built a kind of porn version of Eliza, but I never went through with the plans to put it live, perhaps out of shame.
I wasn't going to claim they were real women, just put it on the web and sell ad space or clicks. Customers can't sue me if they didn't pay anything
The women were implied to be "foreign" via hazy decorative images, to explain their limited grasp of English. I planned to study the dialogs with customers and improve it over time, or at least mix things up to seem more organic.
I had "rule" tables with probabilities, not unlike a Markov chain, and a kind of crude conceptual model of the human body to prevent unrealistic combinations. "Silly boy, my [x] cannot reach my [y]. I'm not that rubber dummy you like so much. I taste better." I also had a phrase tracker to prevent excessive duplication. (Maybe I should've sold it to the Slashdot Dupe Story Inspection Department :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be worth checking that assumption:
#1 - They aren't called customers if they didn't pay anything. In fact, given the design you're suggesting, they would be the products and your customers are actually the advertisers.
#2 - Those products sure as hell can sue you for negligence for a multitude of reasons. For example, if they trust you with their data and you lose it to hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make the terms of service define "their" data as "your" data.
NSA Secret AI Test Uncovered ! (Score:2)
Female dirty chat bots ? Is this a IBM Watson application
Kinda reminds me of the insurance fraud, when the crooks setup an insurance company and the sold the policies to a reinsurance company.
Used a computer to figure how many claims they could file without being out bound on the actuarial tables.
Looks like this one is legal because of the weasel words in the TOS.
But who would sign up for services like this in the future ?
Bender ?
Shake that shiny metal ass !
So? (Score:2)
If you're gay AM is okay (Score:2)
The bottom part of the article is actually quite positive about Ashley Madison. Quote: "Itâ(TM)s possible, as one person put it to me in email, that Ashley Madison was actually a pretty decent hookup site for gay peopleâ"but that was mostly because the system was designed to ignore them."
It's the straight dudes that get inundated by spam messages. So if you're he-man don't bother signing up for an Ashley Madison account.
So, here's how it worked (Score:5, Informative)
So, about three years ago I was miserable in my marriage. All my close friends advised me to leave my wife, but none of them could offer me a place to crash until I could get on my own feet. I was in an acute emotional crisis that needed an immediate remedy, and my only choice was to find a way to suck it up and work through the pain and deal with it. No woman has to go through this. If a woman is having an acute emotional crisis due to a bad marriage, the world opens its doors to her. Their friends will take them in, they have shelters, they have all kinds of free community resources. Men have precisely dick for options. If your parents are dead, you're fucked, and oh well. No one cares. Deal with it.
So while I was sucking it up and trying to pull together enough money to establish a new household from scratch, I decided to try making my interim time less miserable by having an affair. Millions of men do it every year. Why hell, there are even ads everywhere encouraging it! "Life is short! Have an affair!" That was how I came to know Ashley Madison.
I created a profile there, and it wasn't long before I got a message from a girl. She lived really far away, and nothing in her profile indicated she was in any way looking for me. I tried to open it anyway, and in order to do so, I had to go purchase credits. I intended to make the smallest possible purchase, which was something like $60, but somewhere between clicking on the "economy package" and clicking on the "I approve" button, they got me turned around, and when the invoice appeared, I had just spent something on the order of $370! I never have figured out how they pulled that off, but I'm sure if I could go back and look at the fine print, they had their asses covered.
The "girl" messaged me again, and that was when I figured out I had spent $370 to talk to a fucking bot. All the "girls" on there were bots, except the one human who did contact me. By that point, I had given up on meeting anyone through the site, but I still had like 900 credits left, so I kept the account open with a blank profile. The real chick who messaged me sent a bunch of free amateur porn to a blank profile with no personal info and no picture. She was looking for ANYBODY in the area desperate enough to have sex with her, and it was immediately obvious why she was so desperate. I have a buddy whose standard in a sex partner is that it has to be a living mammal, so I hooked them up. She got laid, and I, having learned my lesson, deleted my account and dumped the remaining credits in the trash. They were worthless anyway.
Shiatsu (Score:2)
Am I the only one who read the headline as "Ashley Madison Source Code Shows Evidence They Created Bots To Massage Men"?
My first thought was, "I'm buying Ashley Madison stock today".
chris harrison (Score:2)
Hi I'm chris Harrison and ..................... chat ended.
So men looking to cheat got cheated ... (Score:2)
Why is this obsession with AM? Have you looked at the medical reps from pharmaceuticals? All reps assigned to female doctors are young good looking men, and all reps assigned to male doctors are good looking young women. If any extra marital flings happen because of this, it is not likely to be any more than general population in the average. All businesses gauge how far their target (doctors in this case) is likely to go, and find people (reps in this case) willing to let
Brazilian T&C proves that (Score:3)
The terms and conditions for brazilian users tell exactly this, more specific the section 5 that in english is 195 words long, but in portuguese is 764 words long. And thats not just because of the translation, this part goes into more details on what they do.
It says:
"In order to allow guests in our site to experience the kind of communication they expect as members, we may create profiles that may interact with them.
The purpose of us creating these profiles is to provide entertainment for our guests, to allow guests users to explore our services and to promote greater participation in our services. The messages sent are computer generated. The messages from the profiles we create try to simulate communications so you can also become a member, pushing you into participating in more conversations and to raise interaction between friends.
You acknowledge and agree that some profiles published in the site, with whom you may communicate as a guest, may be fictitious. The purpose of the creation of these profiles is to provide our invited users with entertainment."
So, at least to non paying users its clear that a lot of the females users and their messages are computer generated.
More here in Portuguese: http://gizmodo.uol.com.br/term... [uol.com.br]
Not acceptable. (Score:2)
I want all of my messages to have a happy ending.
PHP Over Python, Why? (Score:2)
And where could one get a copy of AM's software?
the internet is a cesspool of dubious information (Score:2)
"The internet is a cesspool of dubious information", or so I heard around 1993 on a Mindvox forum. I think Reive wrote that.
Nowadays, election campaigns are being driven by AI bots programmed to spread false rumors. It's a little more serious than people paying to "date" virtual software robots, believing they are going to score anonymous affairs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask me to help with your spambot though and I will say no thank you, sir.
But it exploits the stupid, and don't stupid people deserve to be exploited just as much as adulterers?
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the ratio of males to females 1:3? Have you already passed into heaven?
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the ratio of males to females 1:3? Have you already passed into heaven?
Apparently the Mormon community is nearly at that level, and young Mormon men are playing at it like kids in a candy store. There was an article about this that was kind of interesting: http://time.com/dateonomics/ [time.com]
"there are now 150 Mormon women for every 100 Mormon men in the state of Utah—a 50 percent oversupply of women"
Unfortunately, they're Mormon women....so dating them is likely to be an exercise in frustration for any normal man.
Re: (Score:3)
it doesn't work for me
It doesn't work for men! We are waaaay more disadvantaged in the game of finding casual partners. Blame it on the economic law of supply and demand, perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't work for me
It doesn't work for men! We are waaaay more disadvantaged in the game of finding casual partners. Blame it on the economic law of supply and demand, perhaps.
It's actually very easy: you need to possess and display power and influence. With sufficient power and influence you don't even need to hide - you can openly have as many women as you want. Regardless of power and influence women still have to hide their extramarital dalliances unless they want to lose the marriage. Powerful and influential men don't.
So, stop complaining and get to work on becoming a millionaire :-)
Re: (Score:2)
So, stop complaining and get to work on becoming a millionaire :-)
Unfortunately the continuous strain of finding a woman has always distracted me from the work needed to become a millionaire :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Toxic ideas about masculinity are the root problem. Women had the same issues in the 50s, before women's lib. If they were not married with kids they were worthless. There was a lot of pressure to find a man and keep him.
Once men realize that they are not defined by how much sex they are having or how hot their girlfriend is they will not only be a lot happier, but also have more success with the ladies. Seriously, if you want regular, good sex the best way to get it is to find a good long term partner. Not
Re: Amazing (Score:2)
They should sell the technology to the makers of RealDoll, the hyper-realistic sex doll. They could charge a ton for an anamatronic version that could talk dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They paid to be deleted from the website. And they were! After they paid, their record was marked with "paid delete" and they didn't show up on the site any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Old trick [giantgag.net]