THE DAILY MONITOR — Dec 29 — Mark Musoke of Global Internet café says that online dating has become as much a part of peoples' lives as the Internet is. What makes online dating even more fascinating are the high levels of privacy that are maintained. Most dating sites keep the details of their clients private and allow users to report incidents of harassment. Dating online is very convenient and a lot more comfortable than real life experience. Online dating grants women security from premature physical advances from men, granting them and opportunity to study the date well before getting involved in a serious relationship.
Online dating also grants perpetrators anonymity. I’ve heard of Nigerian Scam artists frequenting online dating services to find victims.
I agree that online dating is most convenient. It is also quite safe until you are the one who is victimized, and then it becomes a much different story. In the past few weeks, there was one article about a woman on JDate being bilked out of $100,000 by her brand new suitor, and another story where a woman was sharp enough to recognize a sexual predator from another site where she had previously belonged. The man’s offenses were serious enough that he lost his physician’s license. Factor in the smaller crimes, the identity thefts, the credit card scams, and there are more than a few inconveniences, if you are the one to be so singled out. And then, of course, no matter how remote, there is the possibility of physical violence. So unless you are the kind who prefers to always conduct your relationship via remote communication, phone sex and fantasy, sooner or later you will have to meet Mr. and Mrs. Possible. Then comes the moment of truth when you discover if they are who they really claim they are. That is not the time you want to find out if they have been lying. It pays to check them out, before you actually go out with them. Before you become another statistic.
It seems a tad self-serving fear-mongering about online dating if you are peddling background checks.
There will always be fools waiting to be bilked out of their life’s savings. That has nothing to do with the Internet or online dating. There will also always be sexual predators waiting for their next victim. Such is the fallen world in which we live.
However, sensible people are not overly trusting of strangers and (ought to) exercise the same caution they would off-line when on-line.
Why does online dating get such a bad rap? I guess it pays to when selling more papers – or background checks;-)
The reason for the bad rap is nobody looks at all the numbers Sam. How many people visit online dating sites now? 40 million + per month is it? And how many real problems can even Herb talk about from online dating sites? I imagine if you took just the population of California, fall smaller then the 40 million visiting personals sites, they have 1,000’s of times more violent crimes in a year then all dating sites combined. Probably 1,000’s of violent acts happen in just California bars, but you don’t need a background check to go there. It’s all political BS and the press looking for ratings points. Clearly love and sex sells to voters and newswatchers too. It’s a hot new industry so they are taking a free ride.
Amen!
Bill,
First, on an online dating site a criminal can sit in anonymity and take his time selecting from among millions of potential targets. This seems like an extremely attractive scenario for a criminal. If you don’t agree, fine. I’ll grant you that point for the sake of argument. But it seems to me you are going much farther than that, and much farther than reason will allow.
I am not personally aware of any detailed studies on crime between individuals who met on internet dating sites. Until such studies have been done, however, which is the rational assumption? a) that those forty million internet daters are somehow all as pure as snow, or b) that those forty million people are just that – people like any others. It sounds like you’re suggesting something like a) over b). Because if you think it’s b), you would have to admit that a large enough percentage of those people commit crimes against one another to be a major concern – which seems to be exactly what you’re denying. Clearly, the reasonable assumption is that those forty million are at least as likely as anyone else to be criminals.
As for this bar analogy… 1) There is a difference between a matchmaking service and a public bar. They fulfill different services. (I think a better analogy with a bar would be requiring the bar owner to notify patrons of less than ideal fire-safety conditions.) 2) *Online* background checks can ensure the privacy of the individual checked – no human needs to connect a name or face to a criminal record, it can be done electronically. Not so at the bar. 3) Background checks done at the door of a bar would be a tremendous inconvenience for the consumer, who would have to wait in a line around the block to get in to even the neighborhood watering hole. 4) Number 3 would bring about a huge downturn – to say the least – in the “bar industry”. 5) The changes that would have to be made to the average bar to do background checks are obviously much greater than the changes that would have to be made by online dating sites.
And unfortunately Dan, your background check simply didn’t work. PERIOD! It just didn’t work. Are you saying that people shouldn’t use caution on your site or should everyone on every site use caution? What is it Dan? Use less caution when meeting someone on True? You guys are amazing, you clutter the facts with warped logic. All criminals were at one time first offenders and that’s something you cannot deny. I believe the background checks you offer are good – I really do. They are a great differntiator and you can promote them in your marketing. But not every site should be required to fall into your idea for disclosure. When your father says they are not foolproof, you can’t expect to regulate something that doesn’t fully work. Why don’t you guys take your disclosure lead and post in BIG BOLD LETTERS on your homepage “WE DON’T VERIFY ID IN PERSON AND CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THE BACKGROUND CHECK’s WE DO ARE ACTUALLY DONE ON THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THEY SAY THEY ARE.” The Right One, Together and Great Expectations meet all there members in person. Surely in an age where identity theft has reached epidemic proportions, someone might be able to pose as someone else on your site. Doesn’t verifying ID improve the likelihood that you are dealing with the real person? or are you denying that too? You want full disclosure – then do it. Dan, post the above prominently on your website and prove to everyone that your FULL DISCLOSURE ATTITUDE is not purely self serving rhetoric. On the other hand, why is terms of service agreement not enough disclosure? Are you saying that should one of your clients take you to court, you can’t rely on your terms of service agreement because they don’t read it? WHY IS THE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT NOT ENOUGH FOR DISCLOSURE? PLEASE HAVE THE BALLS AND ANSWER THAT ONE DAN, YOU GUYS AVOID IT! You can’t have it both ways. Are you disclosing to California residents on your homepage that you really aren’t getting jack in California? And what about all the people who try to pick Californian’s from another state – tell us how you disclose that because it’s not on your homepage.
In regards to your A over B anology, I am not saying that 40 million people are all good, everyone knows that. I am saying that you guys are glorifying a problem that you can’t even substantiate to exist. Out of 40 million people there should be thousands and thousands of instances for violent crimes on dating sites- but nobody can show them. Clearly the people are a better breed of people or people are indeed using caution.
Once again, I like your system – I like that you are doing background checks (I started doing them for a bricks and mortar dating firm in 1998 so I am a believer but also understand the pitfalls), I just don’t like the underhanded moves you are making trying to try and gain an unfair advantage. Surely your system should be strong enough to rely on the benefits?
“In regards to your A over B anology, I am not saying that 40 million people are all good, everyone knows that. I am saying that you guys are glorifying a problem that you can’t even substantiate to exist. Out of 40 million people there should be thousands and thousands of instances for violent crimes on dating sites- but nobody can show them.”
If there is a God, he knows instantaneously and directly when A meets B on a dating site and later commits a crime against her. How do you suggest that the rest of us would come by the information? Not being God, I am forced to rely on science where it exists and common sense where it doesn’t. In my previous post I was relying on common sense, but if you have some scientific data, let’s hear it. If not, then perhaps you could take issue with my reasoning. But, please, don’t just tell me, “if internet dating crime happened we would know about it,” without telling me *how* we would know!
“Are you saying that people shouldn’t use caution on your site or should everyone on every site use caution? What is it Dan? Use less caution when meeting someone on True?”
Obviously, everyone should use caution always and everywhere. If you use the same amount of caution on Match and on True, you will have all the same defenses against crime – save one. On True, there is an extra layer of safety.
“All criminals were at one time first offenders and that’s something you cannot deny.”
Yes. So what? The fact remains that convicted felons are *much* more likely than others to commit felonies in the future. If Herb were God and knew who was going to commit crimes against his members, he simply wouldn’t let them on the site. Since, however, he is not God, he must rely on human methods for keeping his customers safe.
“When your father says they are not foolproof, you can’t expect to regulate something that doesn’t fully work”
You must be an anarchist, then? In the real world, nothing is fool proof. Legislators can’t provide 100% protection, but they are obligated to do their best!
“Why don’t you guys take your disclosure lead and post in BIG BOLD LETTERS on your homepage “WE DON’T VERIFY ID IN PERSON AND CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THE BACKGROUND CHECK’s WE DO ARE ACTUALLY DONE ON THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THEY SAY THEY ARE.” The Right One, Together and Great Expectations meet all there members in person. Surely in an age where identity theft has reached epidemic proportions, someone might be able to pose as someone else on your site. Doesn’t verifying ID improve the likelihood that you are dealing with the real person? or are you denying that too? You want full disclosure – then do it. Dan, post the above prominently on your website and prove to everyone that your FULL DISCLOSURE ATTITUDE is not purely self serving rhetoric.”
When you put warning labels on cigarettes, which diseases should you mention? How big should the warning label be? Should they be on every carton? Every box? Every cigarette? These are reasonable questions. Likewise, I think, for this legislation. Reasonable people can disagree over, for example, the font size of the warning. However, reasonable people can *not* point to the possibilities and then throw out the idea just because there is no clearly correct place to draw the line. So, if you want to seriously argue such details – where the lines should be drawn, that’s fine. But the fact that those things are there to work out, is *not* an argument against the entire proposal. That is, you can’t say, “It’s not clear where we should draw the line, so let’s not draw one.”
“On the other hand, why is terms of service agreement not enough disclosure? Are you saying that should one of your clients take you to court, you can’t rely on your terms of service agreement because they don’t read it? WHY IS THE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT NOT ENOUGH FOR DISCLOSURE? PLEASE HAVE THE BALLS AND ANSWER THAT ONE DAN, YOU GUYS AVOID IT.”
I can feel my balls swelling now!
Because, as we all know, virtually no one reads those things! As for this hypothetical lawsuit, I’m no lawyer; but I would *guess* that legally, reading the Terms of service would be considered due diligence on the consumers part and so the Terms of Service could protect the business against a lawsuit. But, because people don’t usually in fact read those Terms, the online dating legislation ought to be passed to further protect the consumer.
40 million americans a month TRY to use a online dating site but only 2 million PAY to use a site.
That means 38 million other singles are using myspace, free dating sites, chat rooms social networks etc. Who really cares if 5% of the market gets legislated to do one thing one way or another?
With VC’s dangling 10’s of millions infront of Free sites I highly doubt the paid model will last more then 2 years. Sites like eharmony will live, but sites like true.com and match.com will die.
The delta between ranking.websearch.com and http://www.alexa.com scope rank vs reach per millions gives you an idea about how spammy the site is.
Average reach rank for a dating site on alexa to ranking.websearch is .15 = 500 points.
True.com has a rank of 750 and .65 in other words they are mega spamming.
Lets take the hitwise numbers, keep in mind they already filter out most of True’s spam.
4.11% marketshare last week.
1.53% Pageviews Share
8:00 minutes average session time.
Average ratio of pageviews to marketshare for top sites is 1.2:1, True.com has a ratio of .37:1 Average session time for the dating industry is over 14 minutes, true sites at 8 minutes.
If you play with numbers from all sources you can come to the conclusion that True’s current rank is composed of 75-80% Spam. I would estimate True’s real marketshare is around 1% and they need 2 to 3% of real marketshare in order to break even.
I have noticed that True is attempting to distance themselves from their legislation efforts by allowing the so-called “Safer Online Dating Alliance (SODA)” to be the voice behind the proposed bills. Just look at the press releases from True.
I finally found “SODA’s” website (http://defendhopeclinic.com/) and have been eager to learn more about them. Browse their site and you may become extremely suspicious like me.
In particular, no officers, directors, or other adminstration are named; their address is a P.O. Box in Austin (where many lobbying firms are based, and possible one of the ones employed by True.com), and you must submit messages via a one-way form.
Furthermore, a detailed listing of current members of this apparent coalition is not given on the site, and they require a postal address and telephone number to submit queries to them. Does this sound legitimate to you? Or, does this format sound more like a thinly veiled front for some other agenda?
These huge red flags say to me that this is an unethical front for Herb Vest/ HDVE/ True. However, I am more than willing to hear evidence in support of this being a legitimate organization. Perhaps Dan Vest or some other OPW reader might shed some much needed light on the nature and intentions of “SODA.”
If SODA is a legitimate grass roots organization, then this should easily be confirmed. However, if this “grass roots organization” is really a manipulative front for True, then this needs to be exposed to its “coalition members” who may be being used for financial gain by Herb Vest, as well as exposed to the legislators who may vote in favor of legislation because they feel a legitimate, grass-roots effort composed of unmanipulated organizations and individuals sides with it.
I never received a response from “SODA” (gee, I wonder why), but I did submit a list of questions to them. Interested parties may wish to conduct their own research on or interview with SODA — subsequently widely publicizing and distributing the outcomes on appropriate websites and forwarding the information to lobbyists and the legislators considering this proposed background check legislation.
Questions about “SODA” that are need of serious answers:
1. What are the full mames and contact information of the officers/ adminstrators/ board of directors of SODA?
2. What individuals, organizations, or businesses are funding the operating costs of SODA?
3. What are the criteria, if any, for an individual, group, or business to join SODA?
4. Who are the current members of SODA?
Thank you,
Kurt Manning
Markus Frind would seem to be right on target about the notion that True is attempting to find business success via spamming. Maybe they are not the only online dating sites to do this (aka. Match and Yahoo Personals lawsuits), but it sure looks that much more obscene from True given their marketing efforts to portray themselves as safe, secure, honest, and for the public good.
How ironic that the following expose from an industry insider raises some serious questions about the business ethics of True:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2005editorials/november2005.html
Kurt Manning
Kurt,
I have not responded to and will not respond to the attacks that make up most of the comments on these industry blogs. As for your touching concern over True’s financial well-being, I’ll only say that you needn’t worry. -Well, not about True.com anyway. 😉
I invite any disinterested parties who may read this (yeah, right!) to read the debates that have taken place here over the past year or so. You will see the same pattern we have here repeated over and over again.
1) Arguments in favor of legislation virtually never receive replies. (People certainly ‘reply’ to the *postings*, but not to the *arguments* made in the postings.)
2) Everyone who has argued for the legislation has been attacked on a personal level by several different “industry insiders”. (In fact, even the author of this blog, who has come out publicly *against* the legislation many times, has been subject to this abuse merely because he doesn’t partake in the hate-filled, irrational rhetoric of some of his readers – unlike another blogger we know.)
I make an argument. Someone responds with an insult. I point out that they didn’t respond to my argument, and they respond with another insult. Seriously, check it out. That’s what happens.
Now, since I’m not interested in trading insults or innuendo, would anyone actually like to engage in reasoned debate about the online dating legislation?
Several interesting items in this thread. Son of dating site CEO mixing it up with industry insiders. Amazing how volitile people get when True is mentioned. Why are people still talking about them with 1-3% market share? Background checks are but one feature dating sites would do well to make available to members. Up to this point, it’s been about up front costs and integration issues. If background check companies made it easier to intergrate with dating sites large and small perhaps more would adopt the service. Background checks are not 100% reliable and never will be. Why are we not focusing on ways to get the other 40 million singles as members? Nobody can legislate common sense.
Dan,
I previously had nothing personal against True. I originally thought the background checks and the proposed legislation were good ideas. Then, I started seeing disturbing allegations about the ethics and business practices of True across the Internet. One or two allegations and stories you can dismiss, but a multitude of accounts is sobering. This made me question the validity of the entire system of background checks you use at True, as well as the agenda and efficacy of the proposed legislation.
What I keep seeing does not curb my suspicions. You are not just Herb Vest’s son; apparently you are an investor in True. So, my comments, at least, pertain to the business practices and relationships of True.
Herb Vest’s business practices are not off point or irrelevant; they are completely the issue. Your father is attempting to change public policy for certain stated reasons that sound all warm and fuzzy, yet the available evidence suggests those reasons and motivations are a shameful lie. We are not dealing with “good public policy” – we are dealing with pure special interest legislation. Furthermore, we are lying to the public and to public servants to give that special legislation due attention and consideration.
The issue is this: Herb Vest is citing all sorts of case studies, surveys, and his own statistics from True (e.g., this % and that % have been kicked off the site for failing your background screenings) for why this legislation is good public policy. Yet, why should consumers and legislators believe any of these data points from Herb Vest, True, or its lobbyists (including SODA) given that True has been repeatedly exposed as being deceptive and unethical in their business practices? That is the issue. And that issue is not going away.
Frankly, I do not believe a word Herb Vest, True, or its lobbyists say or publish. Furthermore, I do not feel consumers, the media, or legislators should believe it too. Perhaps — just perhaps — background check disclosure legislation will do some good. But, where is the data and evidence to support it? After all, Dan, you are the one demanding evidence and solid logical arguments from critics of True and skeptics of this legislation. Do not feed us rhetoric like True has; show us evidence and logical arguments yourself. Marketing spin, nice sounding talking points, and isolated cases of online abuse are appeals to emotion. They are not hard data.
True cannot be trusted to provide accurate and responsible information to consumers, the media, or legislators. Unfortunately, they (or their lobbyists in one form or another) are the only ones citing any reasons or “data” why this legislation is needed.
Herb Vest is not telling us murder is acceptable; he is trying to tell us that online daters are somehow characteristically vulnerable to murder and other horrible crimes and that his solution of unreliable background checks and ID verification will make it all better. Based on Herb Vest’s record of questionable personal and professional ethics and practices, I am not buying a word of it.
Herb Vest and True seem to be deceiving and using uninformed individuals and organizations to achieve their own marketing and financial ends. This is especially the case for SODA —- the so-called Safer Online Dating Alliance. I wonder if the various well-meaning groups comprising this make-shift lobbying arm of True know they are being used. I intend on telling each and every one of them.
I am very sorry if you perceive these statements and allegations as personal attacks. The fact remains that these practices are beyond appalling and they are entirely the issue.
Kurt Manning
In a way, I find it sad that True.com is probably not going to make it. Having taken part in its creation, I would like to see it succeed. But I can’t say that I’m surprised. The mismanagment, poor decision making and downright stupidity of the executive staff were glaringly obvious early on. When getting ahead is more about who you know than what you know; thats a recipe for failure. And the way that Herb threw money around was reminiscent of many other failed dotComs. It’s probably hubris on my part, but I still feel that given one tenth the investment Herb into the company in the first year, I or anyone with a bit of common sense, could have made True.com into a True success. Oh well. Life goes on. Whats Ruben up to these days anyway?
Lee Phillips
Application Developer/Consultant
“Perhaps — just perhaps — background check disclosure legislation will do some good. But, where is the data and evidence to support it? After all, Dan, you are the one demanding evidence and solid logical arguments from critics of True and skeptics of this legislation. Do not feed us rhetoric like True has; show us evidence and logical arguments yourself.”
Well, as I said before, I don’t know of any studies on the issue. And, as I said before, if you do, I hope you will let us know. Now, as I said before, where there is no science, we are forced to rely on reasoned arguments from common sense principles and the little available data that we have. And so I have made arguments that I believe are quite powerful. However, as I said before, you have not responded to them. As I said before, I hope you will.
“Your father is attempting to change public policy for certain stated reasons that sound all warm and fuzzy, yet the available evidence suggests those reasons and motivations are a shameful lie.”
Two points here, 1) motivation and 2) reasons.
Motivation: As I said before, his motivations are irrelevant to the question of whether the law ought to be adopted. In short, who cares what Herb Vest wants, or why? The question is, is his proposal a good one. You don’t seem to be addressing this issue.
Reasons: If you don’t believe the data True releases about booting members, fine. I don’t recall citing any of that data. I made *arguments* from common sense and *publicly identifiable* facts. That is the beauty of an argument; it speaks for itself. You don’t have to take my word for it, because I have given you independent reasons to believe the conclusion. Now, as I said before, I hope you will let me know if you think my arguments have been flawed in some way.
“This is especially the case for SODA —- the so-called Safer Online Dating Alliance. I wonder if the various well-meaning groups comprising this make-shift lobbying arm of True know they are being used. I intend on telling each and every one of them.”
Oh, you mean there are other groups that are members of SODA? And well-meaning ones?!? I thought it was just a True.com front? Anyway, you’re right, you should call all those groups and let them know they’re working with the devil.
“I am very sorry if you perceive these statements and allegations as personal attacks.”
Kurt, usually when you call someone “unethical” or a “liar”, it’s considered a personal attack. -That, even when you don’t talk about his family.
A word on personal attacks versus arguing to the point: Did you ever see that show “Crossfire?” It was billed as a “political talk show”, but they never actually talked about public policy or even political strategy. Instead, everyday the conservative host would say bad things about liberals (usually calling them hypocrites, sometimes liars, sometimes just stupid). Then the liberal host would say the same things about conservatives. If you were the type of conservative who hates liberals or the type of liberal who hates conservatives, then this show was lots of fun for you. If, however, you were actually interested in public policy, then you were well advised to change the channel immediately. I’m not going to play “Crossfire” with you Kurt; but, if you would like to come play “Meet the Press” with me, I would be happy to.
So, please, for the sake of my sanity, try to say something about my arguments. Not just about me or my Father -though you can attack us too, if you want- but about my arguments.
Hint: there are two ways to attack an argument. 1) You could argue that the facts from which the conclusion is meant to be drawn are not really facts at all. 2) You could argue that though they are facts, the intended conclusion does not follow from those facts.
One of these two options would be greatly preferable, but if you can’t manage that, it would also be acceptable to make a separate argument against the legislation that doesn’t respond directly to my arguments. Be forewarned, however, if it doesn’t tell us why the *legislation* is a *bad idea* (as opposed to why one of the *people* pushing it is a *bad person*), it will not be an argument against the legislation!
I will do my best to respond to any argument you make that falls into one of these three categories, but I won’t continue to respond to the attacks you’ve been making.
Dan V.
Meet the Press does report stories of personal conduct. The press loves it!
Clinton’s personal life was a major topic on the show for years. Right now the lobbyist wrong doing and the republican’s returning money and jumping ship. Character has always been apart of politics. Your father open the door. Now that his character and motivates are in question. Where is he? I don’t see any full page ads in any news papers now.
You yourself wrote over a year ago about background checks and making it law. As I recall you were against it. Your father responded using the death of your grandfather against you as I recall. Also stating something about you being misguided.
Any time your father is questioned he doesn’t responded either. The media doesn’t work like that Dan. They ask questions you answer. When someone refuses, deceives, misrepresents, and flat out lies, well that just makes them want to know why. Why the manipulation?
I can respect the truth. Money and Sex sells. True making claims of protecting and safety is ridiculous. I understand and respect the truth money. What I don’t respect is damaging others business and using lawmakers to do the dirty work.
***But, please, don’t just tell me, “if internet dating crime happened we would know about it,” without telling me *how* we would know! ***
In today’s highly litigious society we’d hear about it. In a modern world where abundant media outlets are constantly searching for dirt, especially on hot topics like dating, we’d hear about. You are obviously new in the sector, the media loves negative stories on dating. Also using your above logic and similar ratios – are we to assume that you have an abundance of other criminals in your membership? You can’t have it both ways!
*** If you use the same amount of caution on Match and on True, you will have all the same defenses against crime – save one. On True, there is an extra layer of safety. ***
I might agree with that on the surface – but there’s no way any reasonable person would deny that your members might have an added false sense of security with your promotion of safety. That said, how can you prove what would outweigh the other? Would kicking out some potential bad apples improve safety over a false sense of security?
***”All criminals were at one time first offenders and that’s something you cannot deny.”
Yes. So what? The fact remains that convicted felons are *much* more likely than others to commit felonies in the future. If Herb were God and knew who was going to commit crimes against his members, he simply wouldn’t let them on the site. Since, however, he is not God, he must rely on human methods for keeping his customers safe. ***
I’m glad you mentioned Herb and God, because it appears Herb is trying to play God. Just because he thinks he is right, everyone else should follow Herb? Please! Once again, there is no proof that you are safer – only the reasoning of God Herb and his entire group of loyal follower’s (which might I add appear to be dwindling quickly). I don’t know what to believe out of all the innuendo about him in this thread and on this site (there is an abundance of it), but reading the language God tried to put into the legislation, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the lobbying is a self-serving marketing ploy.
***”When your father says they are not foolproof, you can’t expect to regulate something that doesn’t fully work” You must be an anarchist, then? In the real world, nothing is fool proof. Legislators can’t provide 100% protection, but they are obligated to do their best! ***
Politicians concerned to do their best, what a great world that would be. The legislation you’re talking about would be like requiring a person that manufactures tables for restaurants to include matchbooks for leveling them or a warning label that they may wobble. Safety is clearly more of a concern than a wobbly table (unless of course your McDonald’s and serve hot coffee), but there is no proof your way is safer. And the politicians that say “if it saves one crime” are absolutely comical. If they want to stop any potential crimes from occurring due to people meeting from an online site, outlaw them all together. But when they appear to be far safer then many of the older ways people met such as bars and by chance, why ruin a good thing.
***”Why don’t you guys take your disclosure lead and post in BIG BOLD LETTERS on your homepage “WE DON’T VERIFY ID IN PERSON AND CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT THE BACKGROUND CHECK’s WE DO ARE ACTUALLY DONE ON THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THEY SAY THEY ARE.” The Right One, Together and Great Expectations meet all there members in person. Surely in an age where identity theft has reached epidemic proportions, someone might be able to pose as someone else on your site. Doesn’t verifying ID improve the likelihood that you are dealing with the real person? or are you denying that too? You want full disclosure – then do it. Dan, post the above prominently on your website and prove to everyone that your FULL DISCLOSURE ATTITUDE is not purely self serving rhetoric.”
>>>>When you put warning labels on cigarettes, which diseases should you mention? How big should the warning label be? Should they be on every carton? Every box? Every cigarette? These are reasonable questions. Likewise, I think, for this legislation. <<<** Let’s take your example of cigarettes Dan. What you guys are trying to do is have your cigarettes excluded from having warning labels. You are saying you have a new chemical process that you claim makes your cigarettes safer, yet you have no way of proving it. 99.9% of all the other experts on cigarettes aren’t convinced that your cigarettes are safer, but you are trying to have yours excluded. Now your cigarettes cause other side effects, and you forget to mention that people in some states are actually going to be less safe because they think they are safer because your chemical process won’t work in their state though they are acting like it does. Ironically, one of those states being a state where you are trying to change the law to exclude your warning label. The bottom line is you guys can’t prove in any way your chemical process is safer, but the thought of safer cigarettes is something that legislators love to get behind as they grandstand for voters. I also think there is scientific data about cigarette warning - yet you guys don't have any. ***Reasonable people can disagree over, for example, the font size of the warning. However, reasonable people can *not* point to the possibilities and then throw out the idea just because there is no clearly correct place to draw the line. So, if you want to seriously argue such details - where the lines should be drawn, that's fine. But the fact that those things are there to work out, is *not* an argument against the entire proposal. That is, you can't say, "It's not clear where we should draw the line, so let's not draw one." *** I would hate to be your credit card processor Dan. An executive of your firm saying nobody reads your agreement, yet you want to hold them accountable to it in court. You call a lawsuit hypothetical, I would say it’s inevitable if you guys do survive. With that many members, it will happen. In fact with that comment you made above maybe all your members are entitled to refunds since they clearly don’t know what they were getting. Clearly they have no idea about all the holes in your background checks, because if they don’t read the terms of service agreement, they couldn’t possibly be expected to click through and see all the things your background check covers and doesn’t cover. Once again, you can’t have it both ways. Let me say with your comment, you wouldn’t make a good witness for your own company if a case ever occurs. I for one think that a Terms of Service agreement should be sufficient for disclosure and enforced or we should do away with any and all e-commerce completely, which we know is not going to happen.
What about the legal liability? Lets say they pass a law, true.com doesn’t have to put up disclaims etc.
True is rejecting 10% of people who do a background check.
1. Only 5-10% of people enter a credit card and can be background checked. So out of 5 million members only 250k to 500k Are checked.
2. Lets say true.com has 5 million members, this translates into 500,000 crimals, married people etc in the database.
3. On average every search result, every page viewed will contain a criminal or a married person on true.com’s site as 1 in 10 of the remaining 4.5 to 4.75 million members should have been rejected.
I took some law classes way back when, are people at true stupid enough to believe that a judge would side with true in any kind of lawsuit?
When you advertise that your membership is safe and background checked your making a contract with your clients. When 10% of your membership is not what you advertise them as you are totally screwed in court.
Thanks, Bill!
I’ll take these one at a time in separate posts.
“***But, please, don’t just tell me, “if internet dating crime happened we would know about it,” without telling me *how* we would know! ***
“In today’s highly litigious society we’d hear about it. In a modern world where abundant media outlets are constantly searching for dirt, especially on hot topics like dating, we’d hear about. You are obviously new in the sector, the media loves negative stories on dating.”
You’ve only transferred the question. Before you were saying, “If there were a significant amount of crime between online daters, we would know about it.” I asked how we would know. Now, you say the media would tell us. How would *they* know? Journalists are not gods either. If there were a study about online dating and crime, they might report on it. But, until then, any reporting they do on it is purely anecdotal.
Two cases:
1) Couple meets online and one murders the other.
2) Couple meets online and one steals from the other.
2 is clearly not juicy enough to warrant a story on its own. 1 may be juicy enough, depending on the details, but that they met online is hardly enough of a hook for a newspaper to expect readers to get interested. If they’re famous or super-rich (live on a “compound”), that’s a hook. If it was a particularly gruesome murder, that’s a hook. A murder doesn’t become news just because the couple met online. (This is so because not everyone’s world revolves around the online dating business.)
In any case, the reporter wouldn’t know they met online unless he did a fair amount of research into the story, which he wouldn’t do unless he has other reasons to believe it’s a story – i.e., unless, he already has a hook
“Also using your above logic and similar ratios – are we to assume that you have an abundance of other criminals in your membership? You can’t have it both ways!”
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Which logic, ratios?
In any case, I’m quite certain there are criminals in True’s membership. Given the number of people we’re talking about, it would be absurd to claim otherwise. I am equally certain, however, that they make up a smaller percentage of True’s membership than that of any other major dating site.
*** If you use the same amount of caution on Match and on True, you will have all the same defenses against crime – save one. On True, there is an extra layer of safety. ***
“I might agree with that on the surface – but there’s no way any reasonable person would deny that your members might have an added false sense of security with your promotion of safety. That said, how can you prove what would outweigh the other? Would kicking out some potential bad apples improve safety over a false sense of security?”
Perhaps someone will see that True does background checks and agree to meet her date on a country road in the middle of the night. Isn’t it clear that that would be irresponsible behavior on *her* part? The legislation will force companies to give consumers more information. That some people may misuse the informaton is not a reason to allow businesses to keep it from their customers.
That said, I think people are smart enough to realize there is no such thing as complete safety, that convicted criminals are not the only people who commit crime, and that caution is especially appropriate when meeting a stranger.
Problem is — True has not proven its case. Everyone gets this but True. Moreover, while it is not our responsibility to show why your position is wrong, it is quite telling that virtually all industry insiders and e-commerce experts feel your position is not just flawed; it is harmful. Herb Vest is using this legislation as a publicity stunt, which is actually a clever idea. But, it is a harmful publicity stunt.
Dan, your arguments do not speak for themselves, and your “common sense” is non-existent. After all, common sense tells everyone else in this industry and in the media — “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” You are welcome to defer to your common sense when you do not have any real data and evidence to back up your position, but the rest of us prefer to defer to real evidence and data to make important decisions — and especially ones that affect public policy and an entire industry.
Furthermore, the “common sense” and “publicly available facts” that industry insiders cite to speak against the proposed legislation embarrassingly outweigh your “common sense” and “publicly available facts.” Yet, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still cling to the unproven marketing rhetoric of True?!!!!! A free tip: common sense works better if you take your head out of the sand!
What does speak for itself are the questionable business practices of True. Because of this and the constant deflections and side-stepping of direct questions by True reps, no one should trust any of the information being disseminated by True or its lobbying arms (and yes, there are more members of SODA than True — but it seems to be a “coalition” built specifically by True’s lobbyists to serve the agenda of True).
I think Bill Broadbent has made one of the most compelling points I have seen on this subject when he talks about True misleading consumers, the media, and legislators by touting safety, security, and background checks, while simulatneously not fully disclosing the limitations of its own measures prominantly on its site (after all, Dan Vest of True just admitted that no one reads the Terms of Service agreement on websites, so no customers of True apparently know what really to expect re: the efficacy of the background screenings).
Accordingly, Dan Vest and True’s argument that customers of True are safer than customers on other sites is an unproven (and thus misleading) claim. It may pacify your common sense, but with a name like “TRUE” I would have thought real data and evidence would be gathered to support your position and claims.
We are all still waiting, Dan….
Kurt Manning
“…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the lobbying is a self-serving marketing ploy.”
At the risk of violating my own prohibitions against talk about each other, let me say this. Can you all stop pretending for a moment that True is the only company, or Herb the only person, who has an interest in the outcome of this legislation? Post after post, True’s *competition* complains that True’s support for the legislation is self-serving.
I will remind you that I have argued that motivations are irrelevant to the legislative issue. Do you disagree? Why?
*** Perhaps someone will see that True does background checks and agree to meet her date on a country road in the middle of the night. Isn’t it clear that that would be irresponsible behavior on *her* part? The legislation will force companies to give consumers more information. That some people may misuse the informaton is not a reason to allow businesses to keep it from their customers.***
Your background checks don’t work and you don’t disclose that prominently on your home page – please post all the problems that could happen on your home page and prove to us you want full disclosure. STOP THE RHETORIC!
****That said, I think people are smart enough to realize there is no such thing as complete safety, that convicted criminals are not the only people who commit crime, and that caution is especially appropriate when meeting a stranger.***
So now only crime happens on country roads in the middle of the night? Dan, please show proof that your background check is safer than promoting safety and giving people a false sense of security. It’s says all members are screened, but you don’t talk about the pitfalls except in the fine print. Your promoting full disclosure on your home page is hypocritical. And I don’t know virtually anyone that is not in your firm that disagrees with that. You think you have the answer, but you provide no evidence and virtually nobody in the industry agrees with you. You have the right to your opinion, and you have the right to market your business that way. But you guys have a God complex on your ideas and it shows.
“How would we know about online dating crimes, assuming there are lawsuits out there given out litigious society?”
In my opinion, Bill Broadbent is correct when he says that the media would know about these crimes and report on them. Yes, meeting online is more than enought of a hook; after all, there are still consistent stories in the media about online dating itself and that it can be succssful!
But, assuming that Dan Vest makes a reasonable counterpoint that the press might not find out about the lawsuits, I think we would still know. How? Herb Vest and the True lobbyists have probably been trying to dig up any and all examples of such suits for a long time now.
I mean it would be most compelling to have a large stack of lawsuits to show the media and legislators that the number of crimes and suits merits passing of this proposed legislation. But, we do not see True or its lobbyists revealing the startling and alarming number of lawsuits related to online dating crimes.
I take this to mean that True couldn’t find (and hence exploit) a stack of cases.
Kurt Manning
Touché Kurt
Do you line dance, Dan? You must because you are very good at side-stepping.
You may argue that motivations are irrelevant, but I argue they are. My argument was detailed above and I saw no retort to my points. Motivations are relevant when they skew, dictate, and distort the information given to people that are considering making this legislation law as well as given to reporters who might unwittingly pass along a false sense of security to consumers.
Now more to the point, my recent post was not about motivations any way. Take time to read it carefully again. The gist of that post was to ask YOU for EVIDENCE in support of this proposed legislation. Many people have repeatedly asked for this material, and keep having to ask, but so far True keeps disappointing us and evading the tough questions.
Kurt Manning
Perhaps someone can explain my point to Kurt, or his to me.
In the meantime, Kurt, why don’t you follow Bill’s lead and quote something I’ve written, and then tell me why it’s wrong. That would help us both a lot.
More hints: Don’t call my arguments “whining” or “side-stepping” without actually *responding* to the arguments.
Don’t say things like “our common sense outweighs yours.”
Don’t tell me to take my head out of the sand without telling me in respect to what point it is in the sand.
Don’t talk about the “real evidence and data” you use to back up your case without actually telling us what that data is.
If you wish to avoid personal attacks, it would help to avoid use of words like “liar”, “unethical” and “guilty conscience.”
Above all, don’t tell me I have not proven my case without telling me what was wrong with the case!
By the way, you may also want to take another look at the hint I gave you in my last reply to one of your posts.
“The legislation your talking about would be like requiring a person that manufactures tables for restaurants to include matchbooks for leveling them or a warning label that they may wobble. Safety is clearly more of a concern than a wobbly table”
Right, which is clearly the difference. So I can ignore this, right? Or do you want to compare hot coffee and convicted felons?
“but there is no proof your way is safer”
I made an argument that it is safer in my first post on this thread. You have made some arguments against that, to which I have responded. Were my responses not adequate? If not, why not? (Actually, the posts are coming fast and furious right now, so you’ve probably made one I haven’t had a chance to respond to. If so, give me until tomorrow.)
“And the politicians that say “if it saves one crime” are absolutely comical. If they want to stop any potential crimes from occurring due to people meeting from an online site, outlaw them all together.”
Yep. They could cut crime even further by not allowing people out of their houses except to work. So what? Policy is not usually all or nothing. Potential safety regulation ought to be judged by its *over all* impact on society. This legislation merely requires disclosure of a fact about a business to its customers, any direct analogy to outlawing an entire industry is ludicrous.
Bill, if your use of the cigarette analogy is just to say that I haven’t proven that background checks provide safety, then see my previous post. If there’s something else there, let me know.
“An executive of your firm saying nobody reads your agreement,”
I don’t know which site you work for, but does it have a terms of service agreement? Do you honestly think that most of your members read it? Come on, Bill.
BTW, I’m the bosses son, but that’s not an executive position at True. 😉
“You call a lawsuit hypothetical, I would say it’s inevitable if you guys do survive.”
Again, your concern is touching, but I don’t see a point here that’s relevant to the legislation.
“I for one think that a Terms of Service agreement should be sufficient for disclosure and enforced or we should do away with any and all e-commerce completely”
Um, why? Again, policy is not black and white; it’s about balance. The way the law currently stands, as far as I know (again, I’m not a lawyer), the TOS is sufficient defense against at least some lawsuits. The question is whether we ought to *change* the law. I think the conflict you think you see is between the law as it stands and the law as it would be if the legislation passes. But that is no conflict at all, because if the legislation passes, the law as it stands today will change, thereby averting the conflict.
(Maybe I’m misinterpreting you and your question is really just “Why does True support this disclosure rather than this one?” In that case, see what I said about that several posts up. Gist: If you want to talk about how to craft the new law, fine. But, I think this is a red herring and what you really want is no new law at all. Am I right?)
I’m going to take a break. I’ll write more later today or tomorrow morning.
Dan,
No one need explain your point to me, because it would seem no one understands your point to begin with.
To be sure, I am not the only one trying to pin you down on two simple issues right here and now. The issues relate to your position that the background legislation is a good idea. Correct me if I was wrong, but we all assumed that was your position. Forgive me if I don’t cut and paste a direct quote here 😉
1. Your position is predicated on the idea that there is a social problem related to online dating crime to begin with.
Now, let’s give a rest to all of the rhetoric and the “common sense” fuzzy logic mumbo jumbo. Please tell us, the media, and the legislators what hard data you have that supports your claim? To my way of thinking, evidence and not fuzzy logic should win out here in determining public policy.
2. Next, assuming you can actually prove your claim in issue #1, please tell us (again minus the distracting fuzzy logic, common sense spin), please tell us, the media, and the legislators what hard data you have that support your contention that background screenings will help and not actually accentuate the problem?
Again, this is True’s implicit hypothesis given their legislative push, so it is your responsibility to prove your claim.
I believe if you can succeed in addressing these issues, you will go a long way in pacifying the industry, the commentators here, and the media. But so far, I have seen nothing in your posts above that looks, feels, tastes, or sounds anything remotely close to actual evidence/ hard data. Thus, please do not “refer us to your previous arguments above.” We do not want your opinion on the subject; we prefer to see the evidence that proves your/True’s case.
Thanking you in advance,
Kurt Manning
“Now, let’s give a rest to all of the rhetoric and the “common sense” fuzzy logic mumbo jumbo.”
You may as well have accused me of using my “fancy book-learnin’.” Logic is not a game, it is not a magic trick, it *is* reason. Calling it “mumbo jumbo” or “fuzzy” or “rhetoric” or “distracting” doesn’t count as a response. Again: Which premises are false? Or, does the conclusion not follow from the premises?
“The issues relate to your position that the background legislation is a good idea. Correct me if I was wrong, but we all assumed that was your position. Forgive me if I don’t cut and paste a direct quote here.”
Yep, that’s my position. But what I suggested was not that you cut and paste my *position,* but that you cut and paste my *argument*, or the part of it you wish to dispute. Evidently, however, I have still not succeeded in convincing you that there is a difference between an argument and an opinion. (As evidenced by both the comments I quoted above and by this doozy: “Thus, please do not refer us to your previous arguments above. We do not want your opinion on the subject”)
Okay, that wasn’t a very long break, but I couldn’t help myself. I’m taking another one, now.
Dan,
Just as we all suspected — you and True have no evidence/ hard data to back up the two fact-based issues I outlined above.
I think the contributors here will agree, therefore, that you have just conceded that True has no real foundation or basis for this proposed legislation outside of finanical and marketing gains, i.e., you have no evidence that there is some widespread, chronic, and urgent social dilemma concerning online dating-related crimes — and further — that you have no evidence that the proposed legislation would alleviate (rather than increase) this apparently non-existent problem.
Your arguments are not really arguments at all — they are opinions devoid of any empirical support. You are entitled to you opinions, but without any evidence they are no more meaningful or persuasive than consulting a “magic 8 ball” for an answer. Consumers, the media, the industry, and our legislators deserve more than the equivalent of a Magic 8 Ball to make sense of an issue and act on it through proposed legislation.
Again, we plead with you: WE WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FOR TRUE’S CASE THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS BOTH NEEDED AND THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS AS DONE NOW ARE A GOOD SOLUTION. Certainly you must have that evidence; why else would you and True risk your money and reputation, our tax payers money, and our legislators’ time asserting that both of the issues above are self-evident truths?
I will say it one more time, WE DO NOT WANT YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS AND CONJECTURE THAT COMPRISE YOUR ARGUMENTS. We want evidence that actually backs up what you are saying.
Continuing to wait in earnest,
Kurt Manning
Forget Markus and me, I want to see all you guys wrestling in those big sumo suits at iDate2006!
Hurry Hurry Hurry, Step Right Up and See the Fight of the New Millenium!!
In the left corner, Dan Vest!
In the right corner, Kurt Manning!
In the other left corner, Bill Broadbent!
In the other right corner, Dan No-Last-Name!
Buy now, as tickets are going fast!!
“Yes, meeting online is more than enought of a hook; after all, there are still consistent stories in the media about online dating itself and that it can be succssful!”
Thanks, Kurt, for the reasoned reply.
Whether it’s a good hook is clearly a judgment call. You may be right. Writers will tell you that anything about something as heavy as a death will be good, if it’s true. But, I’m still not sure how a journalist is going to find out that the couple involved met online. Sure, he could research it, but what would make him look into that murder in the first place?
But, at a more general level, Kurt, do you really believe that the frequency of any given type of event is reflected by its coverage in the press? If so, why do only cute little blonde girls get kidnapped? Why are murderers always handsome or rich or a mother whose victims were her own kids? Why does it seem that men don’t beat up their wives? Why is it that the last time something happened in Mongolia, it was an American ‘golfing across’ the country?
As for this claim that we would know about the lawsuits, I think I’m missing something. Where did that come from? Whats lawsuits? Have the True spokespeople claimed that Match would be liable if one of its customers commited a crime against another? I know I stated my guess that they wouldn’t be. But, I’m assuming that you don’t think they would be liable either, right? So what lawsuits are you talking about?
“You may argue that motivations are irrelevant, but I argue they are. My argument was detailed above and I saw no retort to my points. Motivations are relevant when they skew, dictate, and distort the information”
Since you didn’t see it, I’ve copied it below.
“If you don’t believe the data True releases about booting members, fine. I don’t recall citing any of that data. I made *arguments* from common sense and *publicly identifiable* facts. That is the beauty of an argument; it speaks for itself. You don’t have to take my word for it, because I have given you independent reasons to believe the conclusion.” (The post from 10:19 AM)
I believe your response was to call that “mumbo jumbo”.
http://www.bobparsons.com/WhytheinternetcanbeabadplacetomeetpeopleAmurderinVirginiaTheTaylorBehlstoryp.html
True.com rejects 5% of users because they are married.
My site has the option to state if you are married and over 4% of all signups state they are married even more people put down “perfer not to say” ie they are either lazy or don’t want to admit to being married.
True claims 5% of signups are rejected because of criminal records. The media says that 20% of the population has a criminal record. Now assuming you take out everyone under 18 that number goes up to 30% ? Now i guess that means if 400 people show up to idate, 80 of them are criminals and would be rejected from joining true.com’s site.
http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/1999-09/30marable.htm
“In the United States today, about four to five million Americans receive criminal records every year. Roughly one in five U.S. citizens has a criminal record. In a society severely stratified by race and class, most of those who are pushed into the penal system are not unexpectedly black, brown and poor. One third of all prisoners were unemployed at the time of their arrest, with the others averaging less than $15,000 annual incomes in the year prior to their arrest. About one half of the 1.8 million people in federal and state prisons and jails are African Americans.”
Markus Frind,
I’m a little slow this morning, could you tease out the point for me?
(I’m not being sarcastic, for once. I really don’t see what is supposed to follow from this analysis.)
Dan V,
Since you are not an officer of True, are you a Director or do you have absolutely no authority to post a position on True’s behalf?
In other words, is the firm hiding behind corporate governance?
Dan V wrote:
“If you don’t believe the data True releases about booting members, fine. I don’t recall citing any of that data. I made *arguments* from common sense and *publicly identifiable* facts. That is the beauty of an argument; it speaks for itself. You don’t have to take my word for it, because I have given you independent reasons to believe the conclusion.” (The post from 10:19 AM)
I believe your response was to call that “mumbo jumbo”. ”
My reply:
Yes, it is mumbo jumbo since your common sense had led you/True to profess and act on things things that have not been proven by hard data and evidence. Speculations on your part and wild inferences are not hard data/ evidence.
Therefore, we all would love to see these “publicly identifiable” facts you speak of. That was my point a long time ago — we are not interested in your arguments based on your common sense. We are interested in arguments and reasoning based on facts and evidence.
Once again, I beg you to provide us with these ambiguous “publicly identifiable” facts you allude to, but never specify or produce.
Finally, I see some progress here amind the deflections and side-stepping from you and True. Yes, you are catching on now. Please show us all these “facts” that prove:
1. There is some chronic and urgent social problem with respect to online dating-related crimes, and
2. The proposed legislation is a good idea because it will alleviate rather than aggravate this so-called epidemic of crime.
Can hardly wait (but not holding my breath),
Kurt Manning
“Since you are not an officer of True, are you a Director or do you have absolutely no authority to post a position on True’s behalf?
In other words, is the firm hiding behind corporate governance?”
I don’t understand. What is it you think True is hiding from, and how?
To answer your first question, my opinions and my arguments are my own. I’m sure there are people working for True whose job it is to speak on the company’s behalf. I’m not one of them. (I’m willing to bet that True’s spokepeople are considerably friendlier and infinitely less sarcastic than I.) So what?
Is this your way of telling me to shut up? 😉
-Since you brought it up, are you speaking on behalf of a company, or just expressing your own opinions? If it’s the former, that would explain a lot.
You didn’t answer my first question Dan, are you a Director? I am a Director in Instinct Marketing and an officer. The burden of proof here is on True. Do you represent them or not. I have spent 20+ years in the industry, so I am speaking on behalf of the industry here. I don’t think anyone in it should run their business based on what True thinks is right. Furthermore, when I, along with virtually everyone else in the sector I know, thinks True’s lobbying tactics are Machiavellian in nature, I am going to call the company out. I’ve thought you were representing True here, but you are acting like you have no authority.
Kurt,
I’ve laid out my baseline argument here, Philo 101 style. Maybe this will help you focus your reply to it.
1) Convicted felons are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
2) If you decrease the number of felons on your dating site, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to felons.
Therefore, (from 1 and 2):
3) If you decrease the number of felons on your dating site, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to people who are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
4) While running background checks on your members will not screen out all the felons, it will remove a significant percentage of them.
Therefore, (from 3 and 4)
5) If you run background checks on your members, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to people who are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
Please tell me which proposition you question and why. If it’s proposition 3 or 5 that you question, then please refer to proposition 1, 2 and 4 and tell me either which is false or why propositions 3 and 5 do not follow.
Of course, if you think this is a sound arument, you could still disagree with the legislation. You can go back to the “false sense of security” bit, for example. But I hope that if you do that, you will respond to what I’ve already said on that point.
Regardless, please *also* tell me whether or not you think the argument I have presented here is sound, and, if not, why not.
“I don’t think anyone in [the industry] should run their business based on what True thinks is right.”
You’re right, I never should have argued that you should do background checks because True thinks it’s right. Oh wait, I don’t think anyone ever said such a silly thing! I do, however, seem to recall making arguments about the merits of the legislation.
“Furthermore, when I, along with virtually everyone else in the sector I know…”
Talk about an impartial crowd!
“…thinks True’s lobbying tactics are Machiavellian in nature, I am going to call the company out.”
And you have said this repeatedly. Keep it up. It’s fascinating to read this over and over again. Why do you even wait for my next comment? Why not just paste it a thousand times in the same post?
I’ve got an idea. You say that True’s support for the legislation is self-serving, then I’ll say that your opposition to the legislation is self-serving. Then you say it again, then I say it again… On second thought, maybe we should actually have a discussion about the *merits* of the legislation.
I may be repeating facts and opinions Dan, but you continue to repeat the firms rhetoric. The difference is you guys have surreptitious motives. The legislation you drafted is a business strategy and not a care about the consumer. Consumers ultimately pay the bill, you guys don’t respect them enough to make decisions. With your what, less than 5% marketshare, you guys should set the precendence? You want legislation, maybe the legislation should be more about this, “Anyone using a background check to promote a safer site, needs to disclose on their homepage in prominent bold letters all the loopholes in their system.” Would you except that kind of language Dan? You guys admit your background checks don’t fully work and nobody reads YOUR Terms of Service Agreement, disclose the problems on your homepage and prove your not just about rhetoric and spin. Take the lead Dan. Put your money (your an investor there) where your mouth is! Your pushing for legislation Dan, maybe the industry would support my concept for language above. I for one don’t think the industry, nor the consumer, is in need of your self serving legislation – AND YES I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT AND OTHER POINTS AS YOU CONTINUE TO THROW OUT YOUR RHETORIC WITH NO FACTS. You offer no evidence, NONE, that your system is safer.
And since you didn’t answer my question as to you being a director, I can only assume that you are and just afraid to put the companies position on Terms of Service out in the public.
Your calculation to Kurt does not include the calculation for a false sense of security Dan and therefore is a fallicious argument.
Dan has absolutely no proof that voilent crimes happen because of dating sites.
Now as someone who actually runs a dating site that is several times bigger then True I’ve NEVER heard of anyone getting raped or killed because of it. Now as for if it happens we will never hear about it, that is complete BS. I get calls from the police because someone uttered a threat, someone posted something stupid in the forums etc. Now if someone were to actually get killed the police would immediately have to go to the site and obtain all records related to that person etc as it becomes part of the criminal case.
True’s position is based on opinion and has no basis in fact. If there was even a single shread of evidence we wouldn’t hear the end of it. I might also point out that the vast majority of voilent crimes are commited by blacks, homeless etc basically people are could never afford a computer in the first place let alone pay for a subscription.
The biggest complaint I see from women is that men aren’t who they say they are. The biggest complaint from men lately has been that women are stealing their cell phones after a one night stand. Seems to becoming a real trend in part of the states.
Dan,
Let us look at your claims:
1) Convicted felons are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
My reply: I have seen the media report statistics that convicted felons have a high recidivism rate, but I do not know what that recidivism rate is for — e.g., more felonies or lesser crimes.
Also, please cite me the evidence that convicted felons are “much more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.” This is a speculation. For example, there may be groups of other types of people that are equally or even more likely to commit serious crimes.
And one more thing — please cite me the evidence that felons are the largest group of offenders related to online-based crimes.
2) If you decrease the number of felons on your dating site, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to felons.
My reply: This is accurate only if your methods of detecting felons is reliable. Please cite the evidence that True’s screening processes are accurate given that you seem to conduct no ID verification.
In fact, if your methods are worthless, then you could conceivably be introducing more felons to your customers than other sites.
Therefore, (from 1 and 2):
3) If you decrease the number of felons on your dating site, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to people who are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
My reply:
What you really mean is this:
“If you SUCCESSFULLY decrease the number of felons on your dating site, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to FELONS, ALTHOUGH CONVICTED FELONS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE HIGHEST RISK GROUP FOR PERPETRATORS OF ONLINE AND ONLINE-DATING CRIMES.”
4) While running background checks on your members will not screen out all the felons, it will remove a significant percentage of them.
My reply:
This would be accurate only if your screenings methods are accurate, and TRUE has not proven that their methods are effective enough to remove a “significant percentage of them” (who is defining significance here anyway, True’s marketers?). Also, as Bill Broadbent has stated repeatedly, you have not shown this and you have have not demonstrated that True is any safer than other sites.
Furthermore, removing previously convicted felons may not actually target the highest risk groups for commiting online-related crimes.
Therefore, (from 3 and 4)
5) If you run background checks on your members, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to people who are *much* more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than the rest of the population.
My reply:
Again, what you really mean to say is:
“If you run RELIABLE background checks SUCCESSFULLY on your members, you will decrease the number of customers your company introduces to FELONS, ALTHOUGH CONVICTED FELONS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE HIGHEST RISK GROUP FOR PERPETRATORS OF ONLINE AND ONLINE-DATING CRIMES.”
Finally, even showing that convicted felons are the highest risk group for attempting online-related crimes would not be enough.
First and foremost, the burden of proof is on True to show that there is an epidemic of online dating-related crimes that requires an urgent response from our legislators because, as you would say, “common sense” does not successfully counter this so-called problem.
The paradox is there seems to be more evidence for fraud and unethical business practices BY online dating companies against their own customers (like Match, Yahoo, and let us not forget True itself!) than there is evidence that convicted felons or any other people use online dating to commit new crimes.
But again, maybe Dan Vest or anyone at True has actual evidence and hard data to support their claims and position, instead of lodging consumers, the media, and legislators these unsupported speculations.
The nice thing about research is that none of us has to rely on our “common sense and opinions.” The issue can be answered by actual hard data. If True does not have any real evidence to justify its position or the legislation (and we are STILL waiting for it), then perhaps True should donate money to an independent research group (like JD Powers) to find the answers as opposed to paying lobbyists and contributing to politicans to fight for a bill that aims to help resolve an unsubstantiated problem with an unsubstantiated solution.
Does trying to “relieve one unknown with another unknown” really sound like a logical, reasoned argument or position, and good use of tax payers’ time and money to anyone but reps at True?
Kurt Manning