Slashdot Mirror
True.com Wants Warnings On Personal Ads
An anonymous reader submits "News.com.com is reporting that personals company True.com is behind a push in several state legislatures to require everyone but them to include scary looking warnings above personals ads. I'm sure they're not the first, but this looks like a particularly slimy way to corner a market. And the unintended consequences look big, too: by my read of the proposed law, even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages." In just a few weeks, this would sound like an April Fool's joke. I hope every legislator to whom this is being shopped is sent a copy of Declan's counter-example.
what are you talking about?
So I won't be a 20-year old stud with massive guns anymore? Those were the days...
Oh, I gotta go... The warden says my turn's up.
You elected em, you should trust them to watch out for you right?
With my fancy new sig.
WARNING:
Personal Profiles may contain personal data. Be warned.
"WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL." Who would want to set up a date after reading that?
If Slashdot put up "WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CHECK IF THIS ARTICLE IS A DUPE", I'm sure we will still be happily reading and discussing it.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I worry about all those Foes and Freaks-- I worry about the Fans too. I mean, they are just stalkers in the making-- putting their little colored dots around my name.
I asked my mom what I should do and she said not to go to 'slushdort' any more but uncle troll said if I don't log in every day and keep visiting him at the holiday inn on week-end he'll hurt mister chips.
These laws can only make the world a better place. If you are against them, you are against everything that is good.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Especially about themselves.
No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
Warning we haven't conducted a background check on Herb Vest of True.com to ascertain whether or not he is an ass-hole.
How could this kind of law possibly stand up to even the most cursory first amendment test?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
- Verified that the claimed physical attributes bear any relationship to reality,
- Verified the claimed income bracket,
- Verified the claimed IQ
- Verified the claimed negative STD status
- Verified the claimed unmarried state of the individual
- Verified the the included photograph is the individual in question or even of the same race, gender, or species.
As Jules the C once said, "Caveat Fornicator." Meet in a public place and go armed.Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
1. Create new laws and impose them on yourself.
2. Influence new legislation that will force your competition to abide by your bogus laws.
3. Create a new market by having the government eliminate your competition.
Sounds like the American way to me...
even Slashdot would need to include the warnings above user profile pages
There is no dating on slashdot, and the only thing people are going to get here is "carpal tunnel" from too much "wrist action."
If you do have a girl, go away, we don't like you.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
By stating that they *have* done a background check on a person, aren't they assuming liability (at least partially) if the person turns out to be a psycho?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
In case anyone else is wondering, like I was, how this can be done in only a few states... the basic idea is that services that don't comply with the law would be fined for only the members belonging to those states.
./ editors. The proposed bills are different in all 4 states, and I couldn't find much information on them. If the poster really did manage to read them it might have been nice to provide links. Anyway from what I can decipher from TFA it in no way seems as if slashdot would need to include warnings in the profile pages.
./ editors... grow up a little bit.
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Regardless of that, I think this is another strong case of FUD spreading
It clearly states that it applies to social referral services. I admit that what the poster suggested could be true depending on the definition, however it really seems like nothing but sensationalism. The article itself points out that the law is meant to apply to companies like friendster.com, and orkut.com.
Please
If my "Let Darwin sort them out" proposal would gain a little traction we'd all have a great deal more fun with our lives....
We've tried that approach. He mostly just lies there, dead.
Personally, I won't use an online dating service until they assign a chaperone to every date. I would like my grandmother to sit on the couch between me and my date, just to make sure that nothing bad happens, like touching hands or getting pregnant.
I'm an innocent girl and I lose my head when the date goes past 8PM.
Can true.com make sure that my date washes his hand after using the bathroom?
Oh, now I'm all flustered. I need to sit down. true.com, can you please give me a ride home?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of paranoid weirdo who does FBI criminal background checks on women he's thinking of dating.
or
WARNING: This guy whose personal ad you're reading is the kind of person who thinks government regulation is a good replacement for common sense.
But seriously, it seems like people have an insatiable appetite for security measures that won't help them, and an intense distaste for security measures that actually might help them.My favorite was the little warning on the side of the box of Shredded Wheat that said it contained wheat products.
Find free books.
There are several sites where you become pen pals or whatever with prisoners. I would think they wouldn't have to add this text since you do know the person is a felon by the nature of appearing on the site.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
How many of you are in a successful relationship that would have never gotten off the ground if you had been required to reveal all of your past upon meeting your mate? When we first meet someone, most of us would like to keep some of our skeletons in the closet, at least until the other has grown to know us as we are now. It would be unfair if a potential new mate's opinion of me were based upon horrible mistakes that I made early in my life.
If you are in Virginia and have any opinions about this bill, its sponsor is trying to run for Lieutenant Governor. Let him know what you think about it and whether that's what you want in a future Governor of your state.
Even better, I've seen some (clear) jars of peanuts state "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NUTS AND/OR PEANUTS"
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
California Sponsor: Asm. Fran Pavley (assemblymember.pavley@assembly.ca.gov)
Michigan Sponsor: Rep. Jim Howell (jhowell@house.mi.gov)
Texas Sponsor: Sen. John Corona (john.carona@senate.state.tx.us)
Virginia Sponsor: Rep. Joe T. May (Del_May@house.state.va.us)
Let your voices be heard!
Back when I was single I wished that there were warnings like:
WARNING PERSON IS USING PICTURE FROM 3 YEARS AGO AND HAS SINCE BECOME ADDICTED TO CHOCOLATE CAKE
or
WARNING PERSON HAS NOT BEEN SCREENED FOR EXCESSIVE BODY ODOR
and finally
WARNING PERSON HAS AN IQ BELOW 50 AND LOVES TALKING ABOUT THEMSELF
I checked. He is.
Now people will have yet another reason to sue someone for not informing them of what they should figure out by themselves.
Soon everything will come with a warning label, making warning labels as such obsolete and personal responsibility a thing of the past.
This is just another instance of "hot coffee; do not spill!" and it truly saddens me to know that some people actually have to be told these things.
Best regards, A.C.
Does it occur to anyone that the nanny state may be going just a little far.
The day will come that I drive around drunk in a '95 F-150 with a oil leak pre-installed, smoking unfiltered Camels, eating only at Waffle House, etc., etc., simply to protest this idiocy.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
5215 N. O'Connor, Suite 1600 Irving, TX 75039 1.866-583-TRUE
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Crap. There goes another date. :-(
Name: Jane Q. Public
Background Info:
Previous Addresses: 123 Main St.
Previous Names: John Q. Public
Problems are like gifts, it's better to give than to receive
I'd certainly like to see that sort of warning on electoral posters.
My sig is too lon
The thing I find interesting is that by doing these background checks True.com is really setting itself up for some really nasty lawsuit at some point. They will screw up a check or something like that and something will happen and they will get sued for millions - as they should frankly. I just don't see this marketing ploy (which is all it really is anyway) as paying off in the long run. The other more well known dating services aren't going to lose market share based on this.
Armchairgenius.com - Where everyone is a genius.
Mandatory bash.org quote.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I saw this one close up. True.com's hired a professional lobbyist to try to push a bill through in Virginia, and it resulted in this: The Online Dating Safety Act, HB2467
I was bird-dogging the House Science and Technology Committee meeting the day they dealt with it, and had a front-row seat on the results. Even among the most socially conservative legislators, it was seen as a company trying to legislate their business model for competitive purposes. Gotta hand it to the lobbyist, he took the True.com reps to all the right people. But in the end, it didn't really matter. When the bill came up, there was lots of snickering, and the bill died a quick and painless death.
Good Lord! This proposal makes as much sense as the 20th century physics warnings:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
...where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents?
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Additional alternatives:
WARNING: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
WARNING: HOT GRITS
WARNING: COWBOYNEAL
But then again, only old people in Korea post warnings.
Here is a bit of lower case text to get pass the Slashdot lameness filter. What do you know? It really works!
Not to worry. The people who are into thoroughly pre-screening all their potential dates for any past mistakes will die single, frustrated, and lonely, thus breeding the tendency to pre-screen potential dates out of the gene pool. Granted, it'll take a while.
That a law must be violated, before it can be tried and struck is false. Laws can be overturned without violating the law. All you have to do is be is a party with a stake in the law's outcome and file as a civil matter against the enforcement official. Arguments, vis-a-vis this proposed law, could include violations under the UCC, restraint of trade or interstate commerce, or even the State Constitution as a violation of Free Speech or Commercial Speech. The law falls if the court agrees with the argument, of course, but first the court must agree that you are an interested party; basically, they have to give you permission to bring suit.
That permission clause is why violating the law is the most effective way of bringing suit: once a violation occurs, the court is forced then to try the offender and follow the appeals process.
Case in point: did Eldred violate copyright laws to sue Ashcroft? Heck no, he was merely an interested party. The question is not whether you want to pay fines and be a test case, but rather are you an interested party with resources to fund a suit?
The companies whom these laws would damage probably do and should the laws pass they will no doubt explore all avenues of overturning it.
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
you can find your way to the news.com article?
yes?
you can find the links to the proposed laws in that article, state-by-state?
no?
State-By-Friendly-State.
Yes, the state's names showing up in colors means something. You can click on them. Even in lynx, you can click on them.
I disagree about them "not being the greatest idea". Back when I was single I used to use online dating services all the time. I met a fair number of people online, and went out on dates with 6 or 8 of them over the course of a couple of years. They were all nice people. Some of them were better matches than others. There was this one woman who forgot to mention that she was an ultra-conservative who was offended by everything the least bit progressive (and of course I'm an advertised ultra-liberal) but overall it wasn't too bad. No serial killers, no stalkers, no married women, and no psychopaths. We would usually go on a few dates and then decide that we weren't quite right, and then I'd meet someone else. Overall it was really much different than "normal" dating. The biggest difference with a service is that you're selecting from a pool of people who are looking to meet someone, whereas with normal life that woman at the coffee shop who's cute may have no interest in meeting someone.
While there's no guarantee that you won't meet some psycho using a dating service, there's also no guarantee that that you won't meet a psycho at the bar, grocery, laundromat, office, friend's house, church, or anywhere else you pick someone else up. As long as you are careful (don't give out too much personal info, take it slow, meet in public places until you get a good feel for the person, follow your gut instincts, etc) then there shouldn't be problems.
just the sig I was looking for.
WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL.
True partnered with a company called Rapsheets to provide the background checks for its members. Rapsheets has information about their data sources here.
The Surgeon General's Warning is a limitation on commercial speech (i.e. advertising something for sale). Commercial speech, while protected under the First Amendment, does not get as much protection as other types of speech. See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.
Not to mention that the tobacco warnings are for a very serious and real threat. Tobacco is proven to cause death in a high percentage of the people who use it. No such statistical link is known to exist between online dating and death... nor is there any reason to believe there would be such a link.
This isn't commercial speech, because it's a limitation on communication between individuals who are communicating for a romantic purpose... not a commercial purpose.
I don't think these statutes would last more than five minutes in a Federal District Court.
Clearly this isn't really going to pass. It is a PR ploy plain and simple. He probably made some campaign contributions to state legislators and they are paying him back by introducing a bill they will then let die in committee. In the meantime he gets all this free ad space.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I'm not circumcised. What's wrong with being uncircumcised?
This is absoloutely true and I get tired of pointing this out to people that act like every single person online is a psychopath that wants nothing more than to skin them alive and wear their internal organs. There are still people who react with horror when I mention that all of my contact information (real name, address, phone number) is avaliable to pretty much anyone that wants it. They ask me if I'm afraid of being raped, murdered, and left somewhere to rot in this smug matter-of-fact voice. Some of these people are half my age and have none of the experience meeting the people I've met online in real life, yet they're talking to me like I'm the uninformed idiot. Gaah!
And of course it's entirely incomprehensible for any "normal" person to grasp that the geekly aquaintences I have online are no more strange or dangerous (or are indeed far less so) than your average drunken jerk at a local bar. Bleh.
"He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."
If I saw that warning above a classified ad, yahoo personal, slashdot member page, or blogger.com listing I would simply say "No sh1t! Why would [my local newspaper/yahoo/slashdot/blogger] waste money performing a criminal background check?"
The key word in that sentence is the repeated "I". Your error is that you are holding yourself, apparently a person with a 3-digit IQ, up as a standard. You don't need to be reminded to breathe by Homeland Security officer, your corporate masters, or Regis.
In short, you're not representative of the average asshat surfing the internet.
If you're allergic to peanuts and you need that warning (that is, the big label on the front that says "Dry Roasted Peanuts" doesn't quite drive the point home) then please, eat your fill.
Refusing to do so will make Baby Darwin cry.
Being successful when dating online is just like being successful at dating in real life - you need to not only be a good catch, but you also have to go after people who will thikn you're a good catch.
You're part-way there by underestimating your income, if hot money-grubbing bitches are not the kind of women you are interested in. Although to be honest, even most normal women are attracted to a guy who is not por, not because they want money, but because they don't want a guy who wants their money.
But, that aside, the real trick to success on sites like match.com is to mail girls who do not have pictures up. They receive a lot less mail, so you won't fall through the cracks. Of the 20 girls you emailed, MAYBE 10 actually found the time to read your email, and of those 10, maybe 5 actually found the time to read your profile, and maybe 2 of them were impressed with it.
Emailing girls without pictures not only means there's less competition for that particular girl, but it also means as a result that girl will have more time to see that you've got things to offer that may not be as obvious as a tan and a 6-pack.
paintball
I stalked my current girlfriend for almost 12 months before we got together. She was in a relationship and I spent a lot of time and money carefully crafting a frame up for her boyfriend. When he went to prison on the child prostitution charges I was able to introduce myself to her and comfort her, which was how we ended up getting to know each other (well, I already knew her quite well, obviously).
It's something we laugh about now, but if I'd have told her about it too soon it probably would have freaked her out.
(Her ex-boyfriend didn't really have much of a sense of humour about it though, but he's on the sex-offenders list now and has to live in hiding, so who cares about him?).