States Move Forward With Pointless Anti-Competitive Dating Site Law
from the pointless-politicians dept
Last month, there was a story about how some online dating site that claims to do background checks on its members (though, they don't actually check to make sure the person is who they say they are) was trying to get state politicians to pass laws requiring such checks or force other dating or social networking sites to put a huge notice saying: "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL." This law is obviously completely pointless other than to try to make life difficult for the competition of this one tiny dot com dating site. However, it appears that a number of clueless politicians are buying it, and just such a law is moving forward in a number of states, with Michigan leading the way. What's amusing (though, in other ways, scary) is the rationale one of the Michigan sponsors is giving: "There are inherent dangers in the whole area of the Internet. Something needs to be done." This seems like a fairly typical political response. Something isn't perfect, so a law must be passed -- even if it will have no impact and (if anything) likely make the situation worse, not better. Of course, for the dating site that is pushing all of these laws, it's only going to backfire on them if the law passes -- because then those other sites will start doing background checks, and this site will lose its one tiny, pointless differentiating factor. You have to wonder if they pushed for the legislation with the belief that there was no way it would pass -- but they were likely to get some press out of it. Now what will they do if it actually does pass?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's the politician's fallacy
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not so simple
Or is this the "free market" that some people so eagerly endorse?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Strategic Advantage
This is ANTI-strategy at work.
Creating a web site that differentiates from others by providing background checks on their users is great unique value add and gives some people piece of mind. It's a classic example of taking advantage of a niche of customers who are 'under provided'.
Now to go ahead and legislate your strategic advantage into every competitor is witless, and showing an incredible lack of strategic foresight. All it is doing is creating a temporary pressure on their competitors that most will easily bounce back from, and erode their long term position.
The mind boggles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
If you are making a point that the web sites aren't held responsible for providing these web sites, I would have thought they would have fallen under the umbrella of some 'it's illegal to facilitate or encourage sex with minors' law. As Mike states on occasion there is no need for specific internet laws when they are covered by existing legislation.
If your problem is the impossible enforcement, that's not even relevant to the discussion.
I just dont get the point you are making.
And what's with the pointless dig at free markets?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
Women don't usually have to pay. But the point is, the dating services are not conducting background checks, whether or not credit cards are involved.
"If you are making a point that the web sites aren't held responsible for providing these web sites, "
You'll have to clarify your sentence, it doesn't make any sense.
"I would have thought they would have fallen under the umbrella of some 'it's illegal to facilitate or encourage sex with minors' law. As Mike states on occasion there is no need for specific internet laws when they are covered by existing legislation."
Still, if web sites, e.g. Craigslist (where a lot of informal prostitution occurs) can get away with the claim that they are not "facilitating" it, then there is a problem.
"If your problem is the impossible enforcement, that's not even relevant to the discussion."
You obviously have no background in criminology or public health. Laws are needed as a tool for enforcers to stop abuses.
"And what's with the pointless dig at free markets?"
Many so-called free market ideas sound good on the surface, but harm the public's well-being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
If the computer industry wants to grow up and be taken seriously by the rest of society, then it will have to accept the moral responsibilities, and the extensive regulation that goes with it. "Self-regulation" is a fantasy that hasn't worked in any industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
As for "giving customers what they want", kids wants cigarettes too, but it doesn't mean we should have a free market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not so simple
When one, with out a 'radical streak' mentions free markets, they generally are talking about the removal of government subsidies of industries, the removal of trade tarrifs and the encouragement of competition etc.
I would be interested if oyu were referring to this site or Mike when you using 'some people'
[ link to this | view in thread ]