DailyDirt: Online Dating, FTW?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some folks look at online dating services as a tool for meeting like-minded people (with potentially romantic engagements). But as with almost anything on the internet, there are also people out there trying to game the system and figure out how the algorithms behind the date matching systems work. (Though, sometimes the process is a bit simpler.) Just to gear up for Valentine's Day later this week, here are just a few examples of people taking online dating to an extreme.

• Chris McKinlay used his PhD-level math skills to improve his dating experience on OkCupid. Using 12 fake OkCupid accounts and some Python scripts, he scraped millions of responses from 20,000 women... and after 88 first dates with women he found with his own algorithms, he's in a serious relationship. [url]
• About 40 million people in the US are using online dating services like eHarmony, Match.com, etc. And if those dating site users are anything like their counterparts in China, people aren't as fussy about their dates as their profiles might imply -- based on a study of hundreds of thousands of dating interactions on baihe.com (which has 60 million registered users). [url]
• Alli Reed performed her own experiment on OkCupid, trying to determine how awful a woman's profile could be before men would stop messaging her. The one part of her fake profile that wasn't awful was the very attractive profile picture, so the answer should be somewhat obvious. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: algorithm, alli reed, chris mckinlay, dating, fake profiles, math, relationships, romance
Companies: baihe, eharmony, match.com, okcupid

CNBC Argues That 'Call Of Duty' Keeps Guys From Finding Dates

from the slow-news-day? dept

Look, we know a couple things about all the cable news networks. First, they suck. Argue all you want for your preferred vendor of nonsense, but you’re wrong, forever and ever, amen. Second, the reason they suck is that there isn’t enough actual news to fill a twenty-four hour cycle, which is why you end up getting the exact same information fed to you from a series of barely discernible personalities (I use that term lightly) hour after mind-numbing hour. Oh, gee, I wonder if Neil Cavuto’s take on what the latest Honey Boo Boo episode has to say about the national debt fight in Egyptian-Syria will be different than Sean Hannity’s. Great. And, finally, we know that the moment any of these networks begin a story that in any way involves video games, we should change the channel, hit the power button, or take an axe to the power outlet. Often times, it may be advisable to do all three.

So if you’re the kind of person that worries you might miss actual stories about games in the media, stop. If you need to be reminded why you should stop, just check out this wonderful exchange on CNBC, which dives into the important topic of whether or not Call of Duty will end the human race by ceasing copulation. Seriously. We'll barely even mention that the entire premise here is that only men play Call of Duty. While that may be the majority, the three women "debating" this act as if no woman has ever considered playing, let alone actually ever played the game. It doesn't even enter the conversation: Let's start out with the guest host of The Kudlow Report, who lets us know that 100 million CoD players have logged over 2.85 million years in the game, while human beings have only existed for 250k years. And that statistic is vitally important because… yeah, it's not. I could go into the math and make a complicated case for why that amount of time compared with humans walking around and scratching ourselves doesn't mean anything, but if you don't know that inherently, such an analysis will only make you soil yourself, so whatever.

Chiming in on this worthless topic first is Lori Zaslow, whose qualifications include founding dating site Project Soulmate and finding herself alphabetically last in every classroom she ever attended, which, judging by her comments in the video, probably wasn’t all that many. Why is CoD a problem, oh Cupid-wizard?

“It’s easier to connect to technology than reality. It really is. You’re not going to get rejected by technology. And it’s a one on one thing, so you’re avoiding intimacy. You can be Rambo in Call of Duty, but you can’t necessarily be Rambo if you feel scrawny and insecure.”

Whoo-boy, where to start? First off, does getting my head blown off in games count as rejection? I don't know, but it might. Secondly, I wasn't aware that the Call of Duty franchise had shuttered its multiplayer functions. And before anyone starts shouting about how social interactions in multiplayer games aren't the same as IRL socializing, remember that Zaslow runs an online dating site, so lob those verbal grenades at her, too. Once you're done doing that, put in a call to your grandpa and let him know that the feminist movement of the 70's has been successfully nullified. He'll probably be happy to know that all women want these days is a slack-jawed guy with an oversized gun shooting the shit out of everything. At least, that's how I remember Rambo. I wasn't really aware that's what the ladies were looking for these days, but hey, good to know confirmed-female Zaslow. On the other hand, those 100 million CoD players you just insulted? You know, the ones that certainly aren't universally scrawny, insecure, or even male? I'm pretty sure they won't care for your gross mischaracterization.

Unfortunately, CNBC's Caroll Roth, who could have played the hero in this equation, stumbled through her own dumb offerings.

“I’m not upset at guys who play video games, I’m upset at guys who wax. Everything in moderation, including moderation.”

Er, okay. I see we're still going with the 7th century attraction standards, ladies? The waxing thing may sound funny, but turn it around and ask yourself what the reaction would be if a male guest said: "I'm not upset at women who play video games, I'm upset at women who don't shave their legs and don't have my hot meal on the table when I get home. After all, you're just women." Stupid, right? Oh, and before I forget, "everything in moderation, including moderation" is one of those phrases that could shut down your brain and cause it to reboot if you think about it too hard, so don't. Spend more than ten seconds trying to figure out how that sentence is not a complete negation of itself will put you at risk for severe head injury.

But not as much as the comments Zaslow gives when its tossed back to her with the question of whether all the technology of the modern world is making intimacy, which Rambo would call copulation, more difficult.

“I think it’s absolutely tearing people apart, because think about it. If you’re getting addicted to playing a game, you’re not engaging with people. It's definitely not like playing ping pong or pool or tennis. You're not talking when you're playing Call of Duty. Truly. You're calling into not-reality."

Actually, no, not "truly." Falsely. Because lots of people play Call of Duty while talking to others. And I'm not sure yelling "service" and grunting and swearing each time you miss the ball really counts as "talking" while playing tennis either.

The host laughs, before asking about Facebook. You know, technology.

“Facebook definitely brings people together, hence Facebook.”

I, uh…you know, no. Just no. You’re not allowed to one-eighty like that while simultaneously uttering a sentence so devoid of intelligence that it actually makes me dumber for having heard it. Instead, you’re convicted in the eyes of the Supreme Court of the Internet and sentenced to a lifetime of guest appearances on cable news networks. Because this whole conversation is stupid. Video games are just entertainment. And, like apparently every other kind of entertainment, they get maligned, lambasted, and all the other words that mean they’re attacked by those that don’t enjoy them. CoD is no more anti-social than watching television, or movies, or reading a book (Super-solitary!!! Death to books!).

Thus ends your reminder as to why you should never watch cable news, hence cable news.

Filed Under: cable news, call of duty, dating, lori zaslow, video games

New Book About Data Mining To Find Love Online Has Author Admit To Possible CFAA Violations

from the seems-like-that's-a-problem dept

There's a new book out called Data, A Love Story by Amy Webb, in which she talks about how she gamed online dating sites. If you look at an account from the Washington Post, an excerpt at the Huffington Post and another excerpt at Slate, Webb discusses openly how she set up a ton of fake profiles on the online dating site JDate. Here's an example:

After figuring out just who she's seeking, Webb rejoins JDate, the Jewish dating site, as a man — creating 10 profiles for men she would want to date, with stock images and character sketches so elaborate you'd think she were outlining a novel. For example, we learn from the spreadsheet she makes for LawMan2346 that he and his younger brother, Mark, "didn't get along great as kids, but they're best friends now. Mark is the total opposite of him — plays sports, drinks beer. Typical man's man kind of guy."

But she's not Catfishing, she's doing opposition research. For a month, she corresponds with 96 female JDaters through these fake profiles, never meeting these women but interacting just enough to collect data (more spreadsheets!) on how they present themselves. Then, she can mimic her competitors and hopefully snag a better catch.

Interesting approach, I guess. Having met my wife through more traditional means at a time when online dating was in its infancy, I can only imagine the difficulty in successfully using those tools today. So, the appeal of "opposition research" and fake accounts for testing certainly must seem appealing. At the very least, it probably makes good fodder for a book... as it obviously did in this case.

But here's the problem. As we've been discussing, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), it's possible that she committed multiple felonies, and could face jail time. Now, let's be clear: no one has charged her with this and it's doubtful that anyone will. But in an age where we're finally starting to realize that perhaps we need to change and fix the CFAA, it's helpful to point out examples of how the law could easily be twisted.

Let's start with JDate's terms and conditions of service. There are a few clauses I want to call out. The first is in the "Registration and Subscription" section, in which it notes:

You agree to provide accurate, current and complete information about Yourself as prompted by Our registration form ("Registration Data"), and to maintain and update Your information to keep it accurate, current and complete."

In the "Proprietary Rights" section, it notes:

You represent and warrant to Us that the information posted in Your profile, including Your photograph, is posted by You and that You are the exclusive author of Your profile and the exclusive owner of Your photographs. You assign to Us, with full title guarantee, all copyright in Your profile, Your photographs posted, and any additional information sent to Us at any time in connection with Your use of the Service.

In the section "Your use of the service" it notes:

You will not post on the Service, or transmit to other members or to Us or Our employees, any defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, offensive, sexually oriented, threatening, harassing, racially offensive, or illegal material, or any material that infringes or violates another party's rights

And also the following:

You will not harass or impersonate any person or entity. You will not use any manual or automatic device or process to retrieve, index, data mine, or, in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the Service or its contents.

Now, you could make a case that in setting up ten completely fake profiles, including stock images, and then data mining the results of the women who communicated with those profiles, that she violated at least some, and possibly all of the clauses called out above.

Courts are not entirely in agreement on this, but certainly some courts have said that violating the terms of service of a website can potentially violate the CFAA (there are other factors that matter too). Even if we just look at the clauses of the CFAA that were used against Aaron Swartz, you could see how some (though not all) might apply to Webb as well. There's (a)(2)(c): intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and thereby obtains information from any protected computer. There's (a)(4): knowingly and with intent to defraud, accessed a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value (as long as the thing of value is more than $5,000). Obviously, much of this is open to interpretation, but would you put it past a federal prosecutor arguing that Webb "knowingly and with intent to defraud" by "exceeding authorized access" obtained information and then obtained something of value more than $5,000? As the book reveals, Webb used these methods to meet her eventual husband. Is a husband something of value worth more than $5,000? Yes, perhaps it's a stretch, but... is it so much of a stretch that you couldn't see someone making the argument?

If you wanted to take it to even more ridiculous and extreme levels, you could argue that her "opposition research" may have enabled her to find a husband faster, thereby "cheating" JDate out of possible profits from keeping her as a paying customer for longer. Again, a long shot, but not a completely implausible reading.

And, again, if we can make the case that the value of the information she obtained by data mining these fake profiles exceeded $5,000 in value, then she has possibly set herself up for felony charges -- with maximum imprisonment of five years.

Would a court ever go that far? Almost certainly not. But given the lack of prosecutorial discretion we've seen in other cases, including many CFAA cases, is that something that really should be left to the prosecutors' and judges' discretion? Hopefully not.

Of course, no reasonable person thinks that Webb should be charged with anything for her activities, and it's not going to happen. But shouldn't we take a seriously look at fixing the law that makes it so that it's even possible she could have faced such charges?

Filed Under: amy webb, cfaa, data, dating, fake profiles, terms of service

DailyDirt: Modern Computer Dating

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are search engines for just about everything. Computers help people find all sorts of things faster and easier, so it's not surprising that computer dating is decades old (and started out with punch cards). Technology has gotten a lot better, but has online dating really improved that much?

• Online dating sites claim to be able to find soul mates, but studies suggest they can only provide introductions -- and more often than not, they instill a "shopping mindset" which is not conducive to building lasting relationships. Some psychologists even doubt the possibility of creating algorithms that could successfully match people for real romance. (But experts also scoffed at the first chess-playing computers, too.) [url]
• In 2005, Steven Carter, the director of research at eHarmony, described how his work to create predictive models for compatibility became the basis of his dream job. Carter is probably a bit biased, so where is some peer review for eHarmony's research? [url]
• Perhaps some intense linguistic analysis can predict dating success. Apparently, people who have similar speech patterns are more likely to date each other. Watch your use of pronouns, folks.... [url]
• To discover more interesting tech-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: algorithms, compatibility, dating, natural language processing, nlp, psychology, relationships
Companies: eharmony

Match.com Plans To Ask Users If They're Sexual Predators

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

We noted recently an odd lawsuit against Match.com from a woman who was sexually assaulted by a man she met via the service. The company is almost certainly protected via Section 230 from liability, but with a bit of interesting timing, Match.com announced plans to start screening users' names against a sexual predator database. This seems like the sort of quickly slapped together ideas that sound good until you think through the details. And, thankfully, the folks over at the EFF have thought through the details and are pointing out how deeply flawed Match.com's idea is:

There are several glaring flaws with Match.com's plan. For one, Match.com can't prevent sexual assault by screening for sex offenders. But even if Match.com's goal is merely to check whether users are on a registered sex offender list, rather than to actually prevent assault, Match.com runs into the difficulty that many people who use the site may not use their real names. And while a portion of Match.com's services require a form of payment, a user looking to conceal her identity might simply use someone else's credit card to purchase a Match.com subscription. For this plan to work, Match.com will likely need to move to a real name policy, similar to Facebook's. And often a legal name may not be enough to establish one's identity -- Match.com could well need to collect other data points, like address or phone number, to truly figure out which "John Smith" has registered for their site. (Of note: a quick search through the sex offender registries for the name "John Smith" returns dozens of results.) This will be a change for Match.com: you can currently sign up for an account without providing your real name and there's nothing in the terms of service that requires an individual to provide her real name.

And the real flaw in Match.com’s plan is the most obvious: criminals who want to use Match.com for nefarious purposes could use a false identity to set up service. So while law abiding citizens searching for love are handing over loads of personal data to Match.com, those with criminal intent are unlikely to provide real information about themselves when signing up for the site.

The post goes on to highlight numerous other problems, and note that Match.com "doesn't promise to safeguard user data," in the company's privacy policy -- so with any verification process almost certainly involving handing over a lot more data, the whole plan seems dangerous from a privacy perspective:

It's an affront to privacy masquerading as a safety feature.

This sort of thing, by the way, is exactly the kind of thing we'll be discussing at the Techdirt Insight Dinner salon on May 18th, where one of the key points is to better figure out how companies can and should deal with the data they're collecting, without trampling on privacy issues.

Filed Under: data, dating, privacy
Companies: match.com

Libyans Using Coded Dating Site Messages To Avoid Government Monitoring

from the can't-stop-technology dept

A few different people have sent over this fascinating story of how Libyans have been using a popular muslim dating site to communicate about the protests in that country. It's been widely covered how various protesters around the middle east have been using tools like Facebook and Twitter to organize and communicate, and governments have been responding to that fact, often shutting off access to those sites, or at least monitoring them very, very closely. In order to avoid that, apparently some of the conversations in Libya have migrated to this dating site. The article at ABC News includes plenty of details about how people are communicating on the site, and it's worth a read. Here's a snippet:

The phrase "May your day be full of Jasmine," for example, is a coded reference to what's been called the Jasmine Revolution sweeping the region, Mahmoudi told ABC News.

He said the response, "And the same to you. I hope you will call me" meant they were ready to begin.

If the undercover "lovers" wrote "I want love," it meant "I want liberty," Mahmoudi said.

They also communicated in code the number of their comrades supporting the revolution. The five Ls in the phrase "I LLLLLove you," for example, meant they had five people with them.

Yet another reminder that no matter how hard governments try to suppress certain forms of communication, people always seek out alternative means.

Filed Under: communications, dating, libya, messages, protests

Dating Site's Plans To Create Profiles By Scraping Social Networks: Publicity Stunt Or Just Dumb?

from the lawsuit-waiting-to-happen dept

If you thought Match.com was in legal trouble due to dead or fake profiles, just imagine the legal issues facing an Australian dating site that claims it's going to scrape social networking profiles and turn them into dating site profiles. I'm not even going to mention the name of the company, because I'm pretty sure this was just a publicity stunt to get its name in the press, before "backing away" from the plan. If it's an actual plan, it's stupid. Not just because of the potential privacy concerns and lawsuits, and not just because some of the social networks from which they scrape the info may find ways to sue them as well, but because this seems like a terrible strategy for a dating site. I mean, if you're looking to find a dating site where you're likely to actually meet someone, are you going to use the site where the vast majority of the "members" don't even know they're members? It's hard to see how that makes for a compelling pitch. And I'm not even getting into what will happen when it starts creating profiles of people who are married or in long term relationships...

Filed Under: dating, scraping, social networks

Match.com Sued Over Dead/Fake Profiles

from the you-only-need-to-find-one dept

Last year, dating site Match.com threatened some rivals, saying that the numbers they put out concerning marketing probably couldn't be supported, and ordering them to cease and desist with misleading claims. Of course, all that really did was make a lot of people turn around and look more closely at Match.com's own claims, which seemed only fair. I have no idea if this latest story is a result of some of that scrutiny, but a class action lawsuit has been filed against Match.com by users of the service who claimed that the company was quite misleading with its own stats. Of specific concern is the actual number of users touted by Match, who (the plaintiffs claim) leaves "dead" accounts on the system just so it can boost its numbers. Also, there are claims that many of the profiles are fakes, using images of porn actresses, models, or people from other dating sites (though, if accurate, this could just be the work of spammers, rather than Match itself). Separately, there are claims that just as accounts are about to expire, members get a notice that someone wants to contact them -- but they have to renew their subscription to respond. Except, when they do renew, it turns out that the person who wanted to contact them has disappeared. All that does seem a bit sneaky, if true.

Filed Under: dating, fakes, profiles
Companies: match.com

Revealed: The Mysterious Cleavage-To-Age Effectiveness Ratio For Dating Sites

from the abs-it-up dept

Dennis points us to dating site OKCupid's Sam Yagan revealing some of the data crunching results they've done on what works and what doesn't work on dating sites. It's actually pretty impressive just how much data the site has to work with, so there are some interesting (and some amusing) findings. Of course, some of it is blindingly obvious: women showing cleavage get a greater response. But did you know that said cleavage is apparently much more effective for women who are 32 than women who are 18? Apparently, at 18, "revealing" shots get 24% more interest, but at 32 such photos get 79% more interest. Not quite sure what to make of that. On the flip side, apparently guys showing their abs actually works... though, as Yagan rightly points out, there's a self-selection issue here, where it's pretty much only guys who have good abs who choose to reveal them in their profile photos.

Yagan also points out some differences about whether or not your profile picture should involve you staring into the camera. Turns out it depends on your gender:

So on the photos we've learned a bunch of things. We've learned that you should be doing something interesting. We've learned that if you are a man, you shouldn't look straight into the camera because that's intimidating to women. If you are a woman, you should be looking into the camera because men don't want to imagine you looking at some other guy. They want you looking straight at them. So we've learned that if you take a photo in your bathroom or a photo taken with your cell phone, those have a more authentic, more intimate appeal and those actually do very, very well.

I find this kind of stuff fascinating (not because I'm interested in online dating -- happily married and all that) but because suddenly all sorts of bizarre data is now available that opens up a window into the human brain that just wasn't there before. The obvious stuff is no surprise, clearly, but some of the specifics and other oddities really are fascinating, and give you a data-based look into human psychology.

Filed Under: data, dating

People Who Exaggerate Themselves On Online Dating Sites Do So Just As Much In Real Life As Well

from the hate-the-player,-not-the-game dept

There's this generally accepted wisdom out there that on the internet, people lie about themselves freely. Recently, we pointed to a study that found, actually, people are pretty honest about themselves when creating social networking profiles. At the time, we noted that this might just be because on social networking sites people know they're connecting (mostly) with friends who already know them -- and then there are social mores against lying about yourself. However, we wondered if the same would be true on dating sites. We don't quite have the answer to that yet, but Nancy Baym points us to a study that says that daters who exaggerate about themselves are equally likely to exaggerate about themselves in real life as well. That is, the exaggeration has nothing to do with it being online, and everything to do with what kind of person they are.

Furthermore, the study found that those who lie online aren't doing it to necessarily be manipulative -- but because they want to better "fit in." So, it's more about appearing "normal," rather than appearing exceptional in some way.

Oh, and as for the overall amount of lying? It was actually "quite small," because the online daters hope to actually meet in person with the people they meet online, they know that lying in the dating profile will also quickly be discovered.

Filed Under: dating, honesty, online personality, truth