Whatever Happened to Ashley Madison? Affairs in the Time of Coronavirus (venturebeat.com) 67
An anonymous reader quotes VentureBeat:
Ashley Madison's tagline has taken on a new ring amid the COVID-19 pandemic — "Life's short. Have an affair." And the "married dating" site, used to conduct clandestine affairs, has found itself in the midst of a boom. Despite the fact that it's harder than ever to physically meet up with a fellow cheater, Ashley Madison is seeing a surge in users. Some are just looking to chat with someone other than a spouse, some are seeking emotional validation or the fantasy of pursuing a secret sex life...
The company became a household name in July 2015, when hackers stole data on 32 million cheating spouses. The leak of sensitive data led to spouses discovering that their significant others were cheating. Divorces, breakups, and suicides ensued. The hackers also exposed that Ashley Madison used bots posing as attractive young women to lure men into engaging more with the site. The company says it has since beefed up its security and rid itself of the bots. And now it's more than double the size it was at the time of the hack, with over 65 million members last year. During 2019, the company added 15,500 new members a day. More recently, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been adding 17,000 new members a day.
Its chief strategy officer tells them that after their massive data breach "we were signing up more than 100,000 people a day... [W]e also saw revenues jump during that small time frame." (And the site also acquired "a whole new security team...")
Interestingly, he also says Facebook won't allow them to buy ads, which seems especially anticompetitive since Facebook runs its own dating site. "They block us but let other dating platforms advertise... We have had multiple conversations with them, and no, it's a fruitless conversation, unfortunately... This is part of the problem with Facebook, in general, in that they get to pick and choose which companies are going to advertise on the second-largest, if not the largest, digital advertising platform in the world. We question the validity of that."
The company became a household name in July 2015, when hackers stole data on 32 million cheating spouses. The leak of sensitive data led to spouses discovering that their significant others were cheating. Divorces, breakups, and suicides ensued. The hackers also exposed that Ashley Madison used bots posing as attractive young women to lure men into engaging more with the site. The company says it has since beefed up its security and rid itself of the bots. And now it's more than double the size it was at the time of the hack, with over 65 million members last year. During 2019, the company added 15,500 new members a day. More recently, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been adding 17,000 new members a day.
Its chief strategy officer tells them that after their massive data breach "we were signing up more than 100,000 people a day... [W]e also saw revenues jump during that small time frame." (And the site also acquired "a whole new security team...")
Interestingly, he also says Facebook won't allow them to buy ads, which seems especially anticompetitive since Facebook runs its own dating site. "They block us but let other dating platforms advertise... We have had multiple conversations with them, and no, it's a fruitless conversation, unfortunately... This is part of the problem with Facebook, in general, in that they get to pick and choose which companies are going to advertise on the second-largest, if not the largest, digital advertising platform in the world. We question the validity of that."
Always an upside (Score:1)
Coronavirus is improving both Climate Change, and promiscuous STD transmission, it seems.
A few million less opportunities for another pandemic mutation.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with Trump. Does the "whenever I know I'm wrong, assign it to Trump, blame Trump" strategy ever get old for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Taco, can we put "Trump" in the nonsense filter...
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the female profiles on Ashley-Madison are fake. You can't get an STD from an avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
But who knows what you can get from that postcard that Ivan, er, Ivanka sent you.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the female profiles on Ashley-Madison are fake. You can't get an STD from an avatar.
Always practice safe hex.
Probably not the best time to screw randos (Score:1)
I thought that shut down long ago (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought that site shut down a long time ago when it was basically outted as a scam.
Aholes are still going to the site?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what's a scam about it. It does function as a dating site, with the quirk that "married" in your relationship status isn't synonymous with "unavailable".
Re: I thought that shut down long ago (Score:4, Insightful)
All dating sites are a scam.
The vast majority of profiles are fake.
They advertise that so many people fall in love there, but don't say that they fall in love *unhappily*.
All those sites exist for, is to make you pay as much money as possible under the delusion of a perfect love that is lie.
Men end up spamming copypasta because you have no "chance" otherwise, women end up flooded with so much crap that it is impossible to not overlook the right one.
And the entire system is heavily biased agsinst men anyway. And openly so.
Men are usually the one having to pay. (Which, for me, from everyone-pays-dinner-for-himself Germany, does already make it closer to prostution.)
And men usually become attracted to the looks (and touches and smells), then the personality, while with women it's the other way around... while online dating is mostly talking and barely any viewing let alone touching... So it's for women, by design.
If you're a man, date offline.
But maybe these thinges exist, because offline it's usually biased for men, and more like a shark feeding frenzy. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's a bait & switch. Most messages from women are bots. Those bots encourage you to subscribe, to be able to continue a longer conversation. Then they won't let you cancel your account. The dating sites are *notorious* for this, Ashley Madison just had their bot software exposed and list of the fake accounts exposed.
Re: (Score:2)
They killed off the bots after the database leak. The bot stats were in the database dump, and it was shown that the bots were only contacting men. They stopped using the bots after that. You can cancel your account pretty easily on Ashley Madison. There are no recurring fees either, and credits can sit in your account for years with apparently no expiry date.
Re: I thought that shut down long ago (Score:3, Informative)
Riiiiihht . . . .
And polticians totally become honest when you call them out on lying. I mean they literally *said* they stopped and are honest now. So obviousl that is true! Because they are honest now! ... /s
Are you running as a contestant in the gullability olympics? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the proof's in the pudding. Before the database leak, if you had a "male" account you'd get a steady stream of message from bots, and you'd see a steady stream of new "female" accounts being created in just about every geographic area for the bots. After the database leak, there's no longer an unrealistic stream of of new "female" accounts, and you no longer get the steady stream of unsolicited messages from "female" accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Bots were an issue, but for most men the larger issue is the leak showed 99% of the users were men. If a guy wanted to cheat, he'd have much better chances anywhere else.
Re: I thought that shut down long ago (Score:1)
Yep, thanks.
That is what I meant with the fake profiles.
But I did not fully say it.
It is exactly how you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you get a message from a bot doesn't mean there's not humour potential involved [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Current GF approached me at a coffee shop, so I would stroll say offline is still better.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment though those online dating sites are popular because people are spending more time with each other and finding out that they are not the people they pretended to be and should not be in a relationship but stick with it, right up until the second they find someone better or their fake presented personality aligns with the fake presented personality of the other person, once the fake wears of, so that relationship will fail.
The reason most relationships fail because people present themselves th
Re: (Score:2)
All dating sites are a scam.
The vast majority of profiles are fake.
Since I met my wife online (8 years ago) I'd disagree with that statement!
And I did meet a number of other nice women and, even if those didn't lead to romance, quite a few interesting conversations
over a cup of coffee or glass of wine.
FWIW, we used OK Cupid.
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a shower and wear clean clothes the ewoks at the comic convention might talk to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oof, such bitterness.
Seriously, most people fall in love unhappily. Finding a lasting relationship you're truly happy with requires a degree of introspection and honesty with yourself some people just aren't capable of. It really doesn't matter if they meet online or offline.
My personal experience with online dating started in my 20s and was generally positive. I'm not a terribly social person, but once I warm up and get past the initial awkwardness I'm very personable. Online dating was perfect for me
Re: (Score:1)
They're not all a scam. My Nephew and I know some others that have met someone and married. Now they have children and it worked out well.
There are some people who are just assholes and there's nothing a dating site can do for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the "women" on there are fake accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that site shut down a long time ago when it was basically outted as a scam.
Aholes are still going to the site?
With things as they are, it's just phone sex for me these days. When I (re) signed up, they had changed from "What would you like to see in a girl" to "No touchy, no feelie, No huggee, no kissee, don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself"
On an totally unrelated matter, can I borrow your phone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMFMf9cN64U [youtube.com]
"Keep Your Hands to Yourself"
-The Georgia Satellites
Re: (Score:2)
I was also in an airport outside the US a few weeks ago, not casual travel, and saw that Disney was still runnin
Re: I thought that shut down long ago (Score:1)
Disneyland and Disney World are both closed until further notice... There will be disappointments if someone books a trip there now.
Re:I thought that shut down long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Our biological drives don't always align well with our social scripts. This reality can hit really hard for married couples (BOTH genders) who learn that getting married doesn't automatically force their brains to lose all interest in sex with other people. As much as they may WANT to feel desire for their spouse and no one else, they discover that their sex drive quickly develops a tolerance to their spouse, to the point where their own spouse is something of a turn off. And no amount of moral purity or love or trying can change this; the reptilian brain does not negotiate.
This doesn't happen to everyone. But one's moral backbone has no impact on whether or not this happens. Morality lives in an entirely different layer of the brain. Those who are both morally pure AND possessed of strong sexual desire for multiple partners must endure a lifetime of sexual suppression and frustration, which WILL have harmful side effects for them to deal with.
None of this justifies cheating. Breaking promises is morally wrong, and that's it. But we shouldn't be surprised that so much cheating goes on, given what we know about how our biology works.
For some people, it really is better for them EMOTIONALLY if they never get married, and instead live as serial monogamists. Or they have the option of marrying someone that is the same way, and having an open marriage. Of course, in both cases, there are matters of disease-spreading and unwanted pregnancy to deal with. And such issue add strength to moral arguments against such behaviour. But the moral proscriptions remain at odds with our biological drives, so one suffers some kind of consequence (physical and psychological) either way.
Still going, just a bit different... (Score:2)
Facebook won't let them advertise (Score:3)
because we all know what a bastion of truth and morality Facebook is.
Why the hell does anyone use Facebook for any purpose any more?
Huh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you mean "cook"...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Ashley and Madison are two CNBC producers trying to get as many people as possible to register, so NBC News can know where everybody is. To many people lie on the census and tell truth to Ashley Madison and we know where you live...
This is not a new site, it's been around for years and the whole point of the TOS is to create a public list.
Re: (Score:2)
Honey, I'm going out to the bakery for some muffins, don't wait up."
Yeah, that checks out.
Wow, "no such thing as bad publicity" indeed. (Score:2)
I can only assume that a much greater number of people knew of the site only because of the news surrounding the breach.
Always another fool ain't there? (Score:5, Funny)
And now it's more than double the size it was at the time of the hack, with over 65 million members last year.
Here is my estimated breakdown.
80% of those are clueless men imagining MILFs from the Hallmark channel are there that will swoon for them. Many incels.
15% of those are women with a cat-fished photo and who actually weigh over 190 pounds and their perfume doesn't quite mask the smell.
2% are actually women you would consider.
1% are frat boys pretending to be women.
0.5% are female journalists only on the site to do a story. They get 30,000 hits a day and assume everyone else does.
Remainder: bots. You really believe they got rid of the bots?
Re: (Score:2)
And now it's more than double the size it was at the time of the hack, with over 65 million members last year.
Here is my estimated breakdown.
80% of those are clueless men imagining MILFs from the Hallmark channel are there that will swoon for them. Many incels.
15% of those are women with a cat-fished photo and who actually weigh over 190 pounds and their perfume doesn't quite mask the smell.
2% are actually women you would consider.
1% are frat boys pretending to be women.
0.5% are female journalists only on the site to do a story. They get 30,000 hits a day and assume everyone else does.
Remainder: bots. You really believe they got rid of the bots?
I think you need to reconsider your estimate on the number of bots on a dating site.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, there are a bunch of women who feel trapped in loveless relationships who just want some attention, and a bunch of young women looking for sugar daddies. I made an account for the purpose of trolling people for lulz (yeah, spending money for lulz, I know), but I just ended up feeling sorry a lot of the women on there.
Before the breach there were a huge number of female bot accounts. You'd see a steady stream of new "female" accounts in every geographic area for the bots, and you'd get unsolicited mes
Re: (Score:3)
And now it's more than double the size it was at the time of the hack, with over 65 million members last year.
Here is my estimated breakdown.
80% of those are clueless men imagining MILFs from the Hallmark channel are there that will swoon for them. Many incels.
15% of those are women with a cat-fished photo and who actually weigh over 190 pounds and their perfume doesn't quite mask the smell.
2% are actually women you would consider.
1% are frat boys pretending to be women.
0.5% are female journalists only on the site to do a story. They get 30,000 hits a day and assume everyone else does.
Remainder: bots. You really believe they got rid of the bots?
So it's like real life then?
Harder? (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite the fact that it's harder than ever to physically meet up with a fellow cheater, Ashley Madison is seeing a surge in users.
Actually, it's easier than ever. Plenty of cheap hotel rooms and time to kill. More reprehensible than ever, sure, but if you don't care what your wife thinks of you I doubt that displeasing the CDC will keep you up at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my area all the hotels are closed. So are the state campgrounds. So unless you've got an RV you're going to have to fuck in your car, probably in someone else's driveway.
Re: (Score:2)
Reputable hotels might be closed, but there is a neighborhood in every town where the hotels are still open.
Epstein Island (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sex under the age of consent is statutory rape, not pedophilia. That and you don't get convicted of pedophilia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CP has some nonsensical laws surrounding it but it's somewhere you don't want any loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally or psychologically? There is a real difference in the terminology used in various laws from the actual psychological definitions. While pedophilia is indeed bad, I don't think somebody attracted to a fully developed yet legally underage person (ephebophilia) warrants the same concern.
The real problem with ephebophilia is that it is an attraction to a certain age group. An much like adultery, the need to keep trading in one partner for another that fits their preference just isn't a good basis for a
Why just focus on AM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely every data app/site is going to be affected by the current situation?
A quick google brings up: Love in the time of coronavirus: COVID-19 changes the game for online dating [dw.com]
And: 2020 Intimacy Survey Finds Tinder Most Used Dating App In COVID-19 Era [forbes.com]
So is this meant to be a hit piece on google's advertising? A scandalous "OMG people are looking for affairs"? A commentary on fools and their money? A realization that some people can't live within themselves? Or a "Por qué no los todos?" meme
Re: (Score:2)
Scam! (Score:5, Informative)
This site is a complete scam. The whole database was dumped in the hack, and it proved that less than 0.1% users were real women. In this site you pay to chat to an Ashley Madison worker pretending to be a married woman.
sex under duress (Score:4, Interesting)
According to David Brooks' article in The Atlantic today 'How to Survive the Blitz', people do surprising things while taking shelter from nightly bomb attacks. During the horrific air attacks on London, people would sing, dance and have sex; often several times per day...
"The histories and novels from the period talk about the rampant sexuality that prevailed. People had sex multiple times a day, for release, comfort, and fun. Graham Greene's novel The End of the Affair is just one of the many cultural examples from the time depicting how strictures on adultery were temporarily loosened" https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
Regarding the fallout from the massive data leak at Ashley Madison - "Divorces, breakups, and suicides ensued" - I'd like to see the citation. If it was significantly scandalous we'd have seen the news at Slashdot.
A boom in bots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about the imbalance in life situation and likely time demands, it could be 10:1 and not even represent an imbalance. More data would be needed about how people are using the site, and what sort of relationships develop.
Ashley Madison is still making money? (Score:2)
This is stupid... given that they were forced to acknowledge, in court, about 4 years ago, that over 90% of the "women" they advertised looking for an affair were, in fact, chatbots, and over 90% of everyone on their site were male.
Re: (Score:1)
Think I still have a dump of that data. I found a number of people in my neighbourhood that had signed up. Made for interesting reading.
Then there was the guy that was dumb enough to sign up from the White House when Obama was President. Yea, he was fired.