Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#191

Post by stcredzero »

powertower wrote: post #178
burnburnburn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The immoral business behavior seems to be the hackers' motivation, based on what they've written. They sought out to destroy the business. I'm guessing they'll succeed in that.

If I recall correctly, the hackers wrote that they where morally outraged that AM was charging the users a deletion fee, and not deleting their data. Except by releasing the users data, it clearly shows their motivation is more against the users, then any shady business practices.

No reason why they can't be against both groups, and are just killing two birds with one stone.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#192

Post by Lawtonfogle »

JohnBooty wrote: post #184
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definite gender imbalances in our society. Is someone bitter when they point out that women make less or that men die more at work? Or is it particular to relationship issues? I wouldn't call Clinton pointing out the wage gap as her being bitter. Is it perhaps some view that those who complain about social relationship norms are generally those not in, but wishing to be in, such relationships?

There are definite gender imbalances in our society. Is someone bitter when they point out that women make less or that men die more at work? [...] I wouldn't call Clinton pointing out the wage gap as her being bitter. Those are objective facts, backed by statistics. Completely different than: For a man, unless they are handsome, wealthy and well endowed (i.e. perfect) then they are at the mercy of women If that does…

>Those are objective facts, backed by statistics. Completely different than

Not really, considering that the gender wage gap often pointed out (the 70-something cents to the dollar) is not standardized for time worked, experience, career choice, or a number of other factors. I would say Clinton is wrong to bring up the 70-something cents to a dollar, but I wouldn't call her bitter.

>If that doesn't sound bitter to you, see a therapist.

Even if they meant actual perfection and weren't using hyperbole, that would still just make them wrong, not bitter.

If I were to say that the average worker's pay is at the mercy of their boss, that doesn't make me bitter, even when you consider it is often wrong (direct manager often has limited input on overall salary).

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#193

Post by LesZedCB »

angersock wrote: post #181
icebraining wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that belonging to the polyamourous community is more likely to limit you in the "dating marketplace" than giving you more options. You're essentially excluding the vast majority of the population, which is very much not OK with it.

Well, yes and no, right? It's a smaller marketplace, but theoretically one with more chances to connect with people, because the resources are being more fully utilized and distributed. And yes, the vocabulary here is somewhat on purpose. I think it's easy to argue that, if you're willing to treat the whole thing as matching providers and consumers, the poly approach is a strictly better marketplace than mainstream d…

Yeah, well I would say that when one is single and poly, the world is pretty wide open. When one is dating, certainly is makes it harder when you either have to find monogamous people who are ok with you dating other people (unlikely), or other poly people who are far less common than mono people.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#194

Post by stcredzero »

Frondo wrote: post #170
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How have we come to accept this kind of immoral behavior on the large scale Cheating is legal and doesn't affect me a customer. Its crazy that an entrepreneur forum is obsessed with exposing these men and women. Not too long ago, my dad's generation were saying "A company run by a gay? I'd never do business with such a morally bankrupt pervert!" Meanwhile, my own bosses have said things like, "Hire someone who smoke…

I care about cheating because it tells me that the person is OK with lying to people close to them. If they're OK lying to their spouse, my concern is that they're also OK lying to a customer. If people want to have an open marriage or practice polyamory, fine, that's entirely up to them. The deception is the thing here that is problematic.

I care about cheating because it tells me that the person is OK with lying to people close to them.

Then you should care about marijuana users and people in repressive regimes who import contraband media and news for in the same way for the same reasons.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#195

Post by betenoire »

Frondo wrote: post #170
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How have we come to accept this kind of immoral behavior on the large scale Cheating is legal and doesn't affect me a customer. Its crazy that an entrepreneur forum is obsessed with exposing these men and women. Not too long ago, my dad's generation were saying "A company run by a gay? I'd never do business with such a morally bankrupt pervert!" Meanwhile, my own bosses have said things like, "Hire someone who smoke…

I care about cheating because it tells me that the person is OK with lying to people close to them. If they're OK lying to their spouse, my concern is that they're also OK lying to a customer. If people want to have an open marriage or practice polyamory, fine, that's entirely up to them. The deception is the thing here that is problematic.

And how do you know which is which? If you see a name that you recognize that used AM, do you ask them to clarify which bucket they belong in, or do you just assign them one yourself?

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#196

Post by pjc50 »

myko wrote: post #185
pjc50 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. and delete it from Google afterwards?

Yes, of course, that is a major goal of Google's DLF. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/introducing-d... http://dataliberation.blogspot.com/

I can't find on either of those pages specific text relating to deletion?

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#197

Post by [deleted] »

roymurdock wrote: post #83
cousin_it wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like you're pretty bitter about something or other. I think you should make more friends That's a pretty unkind thing to say to a stranger on the internet. I lose a bit of faith in humanity every time I see such things.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm pushing OP to reflect on why he holds some of the viewpoints that he does. I'm also not trying to imply that OP does not have enough friends. Just that he might get a broader picture of women in general if he had more female friends. I read your edited comment about how that made you sad. A lot of things on HN make me sad - there are many unnecessarily mean, rude, snarky comments posted…

[deleted]

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#198

Post by angersock »

Retra wrote: post #127
transfire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what it is like to be a man then. It has nothing to do with "inequality". When it comes to sex it is woman that hold most of the cards. For a man, unless they are handsome, wealthy and well endowed (i.e. perfect) then they are at the mercy of women. Which means they have two choices, they either "beg" for it or try to "take" it. Both come in a variety of subtle and overt forms. In either case it…

You're painting an incredibly immature picture of how real relationships work.

Relationships, sure--but courting appears to be what is being talked about here. A subtle but very important difference.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#199

Post by transfire »

Frondo wrote: post #176
transfire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand what it is like to be a man then. It has nothing to do with "inequality". When it comes to sex it is woman that hold most of the cards. For a man, unless they are handsome, wealthy and well endowed (i.e. perfect) then they are at the mercy of women. Which means they have two choices, they either "beg" for it or try to "take" it. Both come in a variety of subtle and overt forms. In either case it…

Whoa! That is some seriously messed-up stuff! Imperfect men can either beg for sex or attempt rape? No! Just, no! A thousand times no! I would strongly encourage you to talk to a professional mental health practitioner if that's your view on sexual relations. Something has gone seriously off the rails for you, and I hope you'll put in the effort to try and fix things up.

You seemed to have missed what I said about subtlety. When a man takes a woman on a date and pays for it, it's a subtle form of "begging". When a man is forward with a woman in hopes she will like the advances it is subtle form of "taking". You're the one reading only the extremities into what I said.

Re: Here’s what Ashley Madison members have told me

#200

Post by fab13n »

netcan wrote: post #104
rue wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know, I think it’s less useful to read ‘lifelong’ into the word monogamy. It simply describes the number of simultaneous relationships—whether it lasts for a week or forever is another dimension.

I think you're splitting hairs a little, rue. In fairness, fab was splitting hairs with me. What I meant is a softening of the monogamy using the currently normal relationship model as the definition. What he meant is that the definition of normal monogamy has changed anyway over the past few generations. Courtship became relationships, which really became marriage-like partnership. He's right. What we call monogamy…

> infidelity which we had the decency to try and keep secret.

Moreover, infidelity was about sex. It might also have cost a bit of money, going to mistresses and bastards, for wealthy male adulterers, but it didn't affect patrimonial rights. Neither could the mistress be promoted as new wife, to the detriment of the incumbent one.

The idea that marriage is first and foremost a love affair is a fairly recent one, and coincides with its demise (explosion of divorces, monoparental families...) The lifelong marriage was a patrimonial affair.

Post reply on HN