> Even though it did not have any business relationship with OkCupid, the third-party data recipient asked the company to share large datasets of OkCupid user photos and related data with it because OkCupid’s founders were financial investors in the third party. OkCupid provided the third party with access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos as well as location and other information without placing any formal or contractual restrictions on how the information could be used, the FTC alleged.
I wonder what is this third party that the complaint does not list by name?
The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc.
"In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."
no. but it seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones (think Project Insight from Captain America:Winter Soldier).
I'm not sure privacy violations are the biggest concern here.
All of these sites do shady shit. I'm so glad I'm no longer single.
I signed up for eHarmony with a unique email address dedicated to that site. After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened. It was a unique account that I had not used anywhere else just for this specific reason, and my hunch was justified.
They were good 15 years ago. As with all things, it went to shit when Match.com started consolidating everything and the bean counters realized that a quality product was not as profitable.
Surprised it took this long to get litigation. So many people complaining about how crap dating sites are, but no one thought to realize the site itself was the problem and fell into the whole "looksmaxxing" grift. Some people really will do anything except admit that rich people are corrupt.
> The FTC said OkCupid users were never told their information - including nearly 3 million photos, demographic information and location data - would be shared in 2014 with Clarifai, a facial recognition technology company, contrary to OkCupid's privacy policies.
Throwaway account. I tried these sites a couple of times each in the past (the UK versions at least). I'm married now and fortunately don't have to deal with "the dating scene" and how awful it is/was.
When I signed up for Match, about ten minutes into the process my account suddenly changed to that of another man including different photo, descriptions, orientation etc. I don't know why this happened but it was absolutely mortifying and an outrage Match did this. I dread to think how shit their code has to be to somehow merge accounts or whatever happened. I deleted "my" account immediately.
I imagine that counts as excessive sharing of personal data.
I met my current wife on OKC in 2010, before online dating became an utter cesspool.
I've been out of the dating scene for 16 years now, but based on what I see on social media, I think online dating sucks today for three reasons.
1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions. It doesn't help that people argue over whether Tinder is a dating app or a hook-up app.
2. I'm not sure how to put this without seeming misogynistic, but some women greatly over-value themselves. Or at the very least, they have out-dated ideas of courtship. Some of them expect to be taken out to $50+/plate restaurants on a first date, while many men think women are just trying to score free meals. It's hard to make relationships kick off when they begin so adversarial.
3. Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail. They can give you matches they know are bad since it keeps you as a serial dater and on their app. They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
> They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?
The reverse incentive is used by match makers. It works well for people seeking marriage since there is a legal endpoint to be reached that can’t be faked and is meant to be permanent.
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
1. Network effects. An app isn't like a new local business where people will naturally wander in. They may already exist but the market's captured everyone on the skinner box services
2. App stores. The deeper you look into the things needed to advertise as a mobile app, the more obvious it becomes. You need milliions up front just to be featured in your critical launch time. If you don't, you fall into #1 and it's hard to recover from the "it's so empty" early impressions.
3. As you said, any success despite #1 and #2 is destined to fail. ad won't make that money up, so the only viable idea is relying on a premium or subscription model. But paid models in the era of "free" mobile apps is a hard sell unless you can guarantee success. And dating is anything but guaranteed.
That said other models have been tried to correct the issues with the big apps. Limiting matches, reversing the gender dynamics, based around special interests, etc. The only one I think I saw any kind of success from is one tailored towards rich/famous people meeting other rich/famous people (surprise, surprise).
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions.
In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to online dating.
Or starting a job; wanting to advance in the office; become an entrepreneur; wanting to go into politics; wanting to go into the clergy; wanting to become president; wanting to visit islands; wanting run casinos; wanting to run beuaty pagents...
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
Honestly, that's fine. The issue was when the "get laid" app suddenly decided to be the "find serious relationship" app. Makes about as much sense as Roblox thinking about a dating app, but I guess the MBA's told them it brings more monies.
> but some women greatly over-value themselves.
It's overblown, but the high level concept of "women are picky" the inevitable course of nearly all dating aspects. Evolutionary wise, women need to be picky due to their long gestation period, and men aren't as picky because they can copulate with dozens of women over the course of days. Add in a caste system and the pareto principle, and even scenes from millenia ago aren't as different from 2026 Tinder as you'd think.
But of course your last point only polarizes this existing natural phenomenon.
>Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail.
This is why we needed to litigate these sites yesterday. But we were too busy fighting amongst ourselves, like serfs warring in the streets while the kings sit in an ivory tower. This is an issue only regulation can fix. The human element shouln't be sold off to capitalism, especially in this time where people are supposedly concerned about falling birth rates.
When you say “$50+/plate” are you saying the dinner itself or each dish? Either way, (in the US) that is not considered a particularly expensive meal for an adult taking someone on a date. In 2026 you should expect $100-$200 bill with drinks basically anywhere. Going out to dinner is not cheap. $100 is actually a great deal unless we’re talking chain restaurants.
If you don’t want to spend that every first date, then I would suggest not making dinner the first date. Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
My reading of the comment wasn't that the problem is that people expect dinner to be $50+/plate, it's that people expect dates to be dinner, and $50+/plate.
The point is really that there's an expectation mismatch around costs that shrinks everyone's pool of daters.
For actual numbers in Canada, the Globe and Mail recently commissioned a survey showing about 47% of singles would not be willing to spend more than 50 CAD (36 usd) on a first date - and that 24% of singles think the man should pay, compared to 0.2% of singles thinking the woman should pay. So you can see the mismatch if you think about the Venn diagrams there.
Fair question. When I think "$50/plate", I'm thinking $50 for just the dinner main course, not including drinks, appetizer, or dessert.
> Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date. They want to be wined and dined and treated like a princess right off the bat. They think they're a prize to be won simply by being a woman.
Though I truly believe that most women are not like this. However, some are, and their attitude is probably what keeps them perpetually single.
You've missed the point. The point is that the women in question demand it. There is no shortage of women on social media ranting about how lazy or cheap men are who want to do coffee or drinks for a first date. Or especially a walk. If you suggest a walk for a first date there's a strong chance you'll never hear from her again.
So, you've saved yourself the time and expense of a shared walk and two cups of coffee. Isn't that a win? Unless you are just looking to get laid, in which case, suck it up and buy dinner, I guess.
the definition requires "contempt", but it has been diluted to mean any statement that merely points out of corrosive behavior
additionally, many of the statements are actually class based and not inherently gendered, for example, we would call out a man trying to date for free meals too, but since its seen in contexts about women, its stated in reference to that gender, masquerading as contempt and misogyny, but not highlighting what is in the observer's heart and mind whatsoever.
Countries are starting to criminalize ‘misogyny’ which includes interrupting women during meetings. I think Brazil is in the process of enacting such laws. These are usually being bootstrapped on civil right and hate speech laws.
Do I interpret the settlement proposal correctly that the unlawfully-transmitted copies, and any training outcomes derived from them, are not ordered purged?
I’m almost certain these dating apps, including Hinge and Bumble are creating loads of good-looking fake women profiles to attract male users and keep their platforms “sticky”. There are suspicious telltale signs like location downtown when nobody says they live downtown in my area. The same responses and prompts across multiple profiles. It’s equivalent to them cooking their books, but with vanity metrics.
No class action or fines for discrimination based on gender? OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
>OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.
Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.
I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a fucked up admission.
If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.
makes me wonder if the person you went on a date with cherry-picked you due to your data. (anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!)
I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nice) dates out of it that never went anywhere.
> As part of a settlement, OkCupid, operated by Dallas-based Humor Rainbow, Inc., and Match Group Americas, which provides services for Humor Rainbow, will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.
Because everyone else is "allowed" to misrepresent its privacy policies.
>"As part of a settlement, OkCupid [...] will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies."
>"Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting: [...]"
every company should already be "prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies" and the collection/controls stuff.
12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation, and we get "please dont do that again". (dad voice: im not surprised, just disappointed)
>12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation
To be fair, the complaint only alleges one instance of data transfer, so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. It's like if your nemesis died under mysterious circumstances, a journalist asked you whether you killed him, you said no, and it turned out you did. Is it a lie? Yeah. Could it be reasonably characterized as "intentional obstruction of police investigation"? Hardly.
>so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
i wasnt clear in my comment, but i meant it in the sense of "12 years to resolve this one incident".
>Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users.
i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
The US Government routinely treats corporations with kid gloves. When they're found to be breaking the law, the company usually says "oopsie doopsie, did we do that??" and the government in turn settles with "naughty, naughty, just don't do it again!" It's like kindergarten punishment. But if you or I break federal law, it's PMITA Prison for us.
When match was illegally allowed to buy okcupid an then tinder in violation of antitrust laws is when I realized how thoroughly libertarian propaganda has won and is destroying the country. I mean we've now fully legalized gambling and bribery of politicians for the sake of fake freedom. We're cooked.
Key quote:
> Even though it did not have any business relationship with OkCupid, the third-party data recipient asked the company to share large datasets of OkCupid user photos and related data with it because OkCupid’s founders were financial investors in the third party. OkCupid provided the third party with access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos as well as location and other information without placing any formal or contractual restrictions on how the information could be used, the FTC alleged.
I wonder what is this third party that the complaint does not list by name?
The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc.
"In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."
[0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OkCupid-MatchCo...
So, your dating photos were going to a government contractor involved with AI killer drone technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarifai#Military_work
I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.
> I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.
Outstanding observation! Class action suit in the making. Only lawyers get rich, but still could hurt the offenders financially.
Just guessing, but the third party company did not break a law or go against their privacy policy.
Reuters says it is "Clarifai" if you wanted to know.
https://www.reuters.com/world/match-group-settles-us-ftc-cla...
no. but it seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones (think Project Insight from Captain America:Winter Soldier).
I'm not sure privacy violations are the biggest concern here.
All of these sites do shady shit. I'm so glad I'm no longer single.
I signed up for eHarmony with a unique email address dedicated to that site. After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened. It was a unique account that I had not used anywhere else just for this specific reason, and my hunch was justified.
They were good 15 years ago. As with all things, it went to shit when Match.com started consolidating everything and the bean counters realized that a quality product was not as profitable.
Surprised it took this long to get litigation. So many people complaining about how crap dating sites are, but no one thought to realize the site itself was the problem and fell into the whole "looksmaxxing" grift. Some people really will do anything except admit that rich people are corrupt.
This article has more information - looks like this was from 12 years ago https://www.reuters.com/world/match-group-settles-us-ftc-cla...
> The FTC said OkCupid users were never told their information - including nearly 3 million photos, demographic information and location data - would be shared in 2014 with Clarifai, a facial recognition technology company, contrary to OkCupid's privacy policies.
Thanks - we've put that link in the toptext as well.
Throwaway account. I tried these sites a couple of times each in the past (the UK versions at least). I'm married now and fortunately don't have to deal with "the dating scene" and how awful it is/was.
When I signed up for Match, about ten minutes into the process my account suddenly changed to that of another man including different photo, descriptions, orientation etc. I don't know why this happened but it was absolutely mortifying and an outrage Match did this. I dread to think how shit their code has to be to somehow merge accounts or whatever happened. I deleted "my" account immediately.
I imagine that counts as excessive sharing of personal data.
I met my current wife on OKC in 2010, before online dating became an utter cesspool.
I've been out of the dating scene for 16 years now, but based on what I see on social media, I think online dating sucks today for three reasons.
1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions. It doesn't help that people argue over whether Tinder is a dating app or a hook-up app.
2. I'm not sure how to put this without seeming misogynistic, but some women greatly over-value themselves. Or at the very least, they have out-dated ideas of courtship. Some of them expect to be taken out to $50+/plate restaurants on a first date, while many men think women are just trying to score free meals. It's hard to make relationships kick off when they begin so adversarial.
3. Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail. They can give you matches they know are bad since it keeps you as a serial dater and on their app. They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
> They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?
The reverse incentive is used by match makers. It works well for people seeking marriage since there is a legal endpoint to be reached that can’t be faked and is meant to be permanent.
What insentives can an app maker provde to turn the structure around?
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
1. Network effects. An app isn't like a new local business where people will naturally wander in. They may already exist but the market's captured everyone on the skinner box services
2. App stores. The deeper you look into the things needed to advertise as a mobile app, the more obvious it becomes. You need milliions up front just to be featured in your critical launch time. If you don't, you fall into #1 and it's hard to recover from the "it's so empty" early impressions.
3. As you said, any success despite #1 and #2 is destined to fail. ad won't make that money up, so the only viable idea is relying on a premium or subscription model. But paid models in the era of "free" mobile apps is a hard sell unless you can guarantee success. And dating is anything but guaranteed.
That said other models have been tried to correct the issues with the big apps. Limiting matches, reversing the gender dynamics, based around special interests, etc. The only one I think I saw any kind of success from is one tailored towards rich/famous people meeting other rich/famous people (surprise, surprise).
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions.
In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to online dating.
Or starting a job; wanting to advance in the office; become an entrepreneur; wanting to go into politics; wanting to go into the clergy; wanting to become president; wanting to visit islands; wanting run casinos; wanting to run beuaty pagents...
Hrm...
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
Honestly, that's fine. The issue was when the "get laid" app suddenly decided to be the "find serious relationship" app. Makes about as much sense as Roblox thinking about a dating app, but I guess the MBA's told them it brings more monies.
> but some women greatly over-value themselves.
It's overblown, but the high level concept of "women are picky" the inevitable course of nearly all dating aspects. Evolutionary wise, women need to be picky due to their long gestation period, and men aren't as picky because they can copulate with dozens of women over the course of days. Add in a caste system and the pareto principle, and even scenes from millenia ago aren't as different from 2026 Tinder as you'd think.
But of course your last point only polarizes this existing natural phenomenon.
>Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail.
This is why we needed to litigate these sites yesterday. But we were too busy fighting amongst ourselves, like serfs warring in the streets while the kings sit in an ivory tower. This is an issue only regulation can fix. The human element shouln't be sold off to capitalism, especially in this time where people are supposedly concerned about falling birth rates.
When you say “$50+/plate” are you saying the dinner itself or each dish? Either way, (in the US) that is not considered a particularly expensive meal for an adult taking someone on a date. In 2026 you should expect $100-$200 bill with drinks basically anywhere. Going out to dinner is not cheap. $100 is actually a great deal unless we’re talking chain restaurants.
If you don’t want to spend that every first date, then I would suggest not making dinner the first date. Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
My reading of the comment wasn't that the problem is that people expect dinner to be $50+/plate, it's that people expect dates to be dinner, and $50+/plate.
The point is really that there's an expectation mismatch around costs that shrinks everyone's pool of daters.
For actual numbers in Canada, the Globe and Mail recently commissioned a survey showing about 47% of singles would not be willing to spend more than 50 CAD (36 usd) on a first date - and that 24% of singles think the man should pay, compared to 0.2% of singles thinking the woman should pay. So you can see the mismatch if you think about the Venn diagrams there.
Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article-is-canada-facin...
Fair question. When I think "$50/plate", I'm thinking $50 for just the dinner main course, not including drinks, appetizer, or dessert.
> Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date. They want to be wined and dined and treated like a princess right off the bat. They think they're a prize to be won simply by being a woman.
Though I truly believe that most women are not like this. However, some are, and their attitude is probably what keeps them perpetually single.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date.
404 Problems Not Found
If the idea of a causal first date appeals to you, but not to the other party, you probably aren't a good match. Swipe left and find somebody else.
You've missed the point. The point is that the women in question demand it. There is no shortage of women on social media ranting about how lazy or cheap men are who want to do coffee or drinks for a first date. Or especially a walk. If you suggest a walk for a first date there's a strong chance you'll never hear from her again.
Most of the complaints I've seen are about men being rude and aggressive.
I can tell you from experience that it's a lot scarier to date men.
So, you've saved yourself the time and expense of a shared walk and two cups of coffee. Isn't that a win? Unless you are just looking to get laid, in which case, suck it up and buy dinner, I guess.
> misogynistic
the definition requires "contempt", but it has been diluted to mean any statement that merely points out of corrosive behavior
additionally, many of the statements are actually class based and not inherently gendered, for example, we would call out a man trying to date for free meals too, but since its seen in contexts about women, its stated in reference to that gender, masquerading as contempt and misogyny, but not highlighting what is in the observer's heart and mind whatsoever.
Countries are starting to criminalize ‘misogyny’ which includes interrupting women during meetings. I think Brazil is in the process of enacting such laws. These are usually being bootstrapped on civil right and hate speech laws.
> 1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
so are many women, unnecessarily gendered observation
you just hear less about guys crashing out over it
I had my OKC account hacked or merged to in the same fashion. I've never had this happen before with any online service.
Do I interpret the settlement proposal correctly that the unlawfully-transmitted copies, and any training outcomes derived from them, are not ordered purged?
I’m almost certain these dating apps, including Hinge and Bumble are creating loads of good-looking fake women profiles to attract male users and keep their platforms “sticky”. There are suspicious telltale signs like location downtown when nobody says they live downtown in my area. The same responses and prompts across multiple profiles. It’s equivalent to them cooking their books, but with vanity metrics.
No class action or fines for discrimination based on gender? OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
>OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.
If your main problem with a dating app is that men pay more than women, then you’re not going to like being in a relationship very much at all :)
Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.
If the service is free, you are the product :-)
It used to be that promoters were paid per woman they brought to the club and nothing for men, and they would in turn charge a cover per man.
No idea how these businesses operate now. I'm sure there's still sliding scales of sliminess based on the quality of the club and its management.
If you exclude bots and otherwise fake accounts the ratio is much worse than 20:1.
that sucks!
whatever more accurate numbers you want to substitute in there is fine, the point remains the same.
My point is that what you're being asked to pay for is wildly misrepresented.
To be more explicit: you're paying extra to give more porn bots access to your inbox.
The ratio is that bad anyway.
Does anything in the FTC action prevent users from filing their own class action suit(s)?
(Sincere question, not snark)
There's so much shady and unethical behavior from these companies I'm surprised there's not more lawsuits and litigation against them.
I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a fucked up admission.
If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.
[1] https://blog.photofeeler.com/okcupid-is-wrong-about-smiling-...
makes me wonder if the person you went on a date with cherry-picked you due to your data. (anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!)
> anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!
"the odds are good, but the goods are odd" may apply here
You're funny.
I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nice) dates out of it that never went anywhere.
> As part of a settlement, OkCupid, operated by Dallas-based Humor Rainbow, Inc., and Match Group Americas, which provides services for Humor Rainbow, will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.
Because everyone else is "allowed" to misrepresent its privacy policies.
It’s more like “strike one,” and sets up a clear standard for what happens if this continues, as it did in another well-known case.[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/facebook-agrees-pay-...
Federal complaint: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OkCupid-MatchCo...
Proposed settlement: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/MatchGroupAmeri...
I can think of a few federal agencies that need the same treatment, Palantir too
this kind of "action"/"settlement" is too funny:
>"As part of a settlement, OkCupid [...] will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies."
>"Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting: [...]"
every company should already be "prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies" and the collection/controls stuff.
12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation, and we get "please dont do that again". (dad voice: im not surprised, just disappointed)
>12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation
To be fair, the complaint only alleges one instance of data transfer, so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. It's like if your nemesis died under mysterious circumstances, a journalist asked you whether you killed him, you said no, and it turned out you did. Is it a lie? Yeah. Could it be reasonably characterized as "intentional obstruction of police investigation"? Hardly.
>so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
i wasnt clear in my comment, but i meant it in the sense of "12 years to resolve this one incident".
>Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users.
i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
>i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
Yeah you're right. The part about obstructing the investigation was in the press release but I was only looking at the complaint.
The US Government routinely treats corporations with kid gloves. When they're found to be breaking the law, the company usually says "oopsie doopsie, did we do that??" and the government in turn settles with "naughty, naughty, just don't do it again!" It's like kindergarten punishment. But if you or I break federal law, it's PMITA Prison for us.
When match was illegally allowed to buy okcupid an then tinder in violation of antitrust laws is when I realized how thoroughly libertarian propaganda has won and is destroying the country. I mean we've now fully legalized gambling and bribery of politicians for the sake of fake freedom. We're cooked.