How disingenuous. He claims they can legally harvest the data "pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", but "internet companies only give agents access to their data when 'lawfully required to do so' ", which, according to him, is always.
5 posts • joined 28 May 2013
"For those wondering which online venues generated the most matches, e-Harmony and match.com were streets ahead of Yahoo! and PoF.com"
Strictly speaking, this is true in that eHarmony and Match "generated" more matches, however, that doesn't mean they were more satisfied. It most probably means that eHarmony and Match have more members. The study states:
In some cases, a given mean difference in a pairwise comparison based on a relatively large sample size
(e.g., eHarmony vs. Match) reaches statistical signiﬁcance even though a nominally larger mean difference in a pairwise comparison involving fewer observations (e.g., eHarmony vs. Plenty of Fish) does not reach statistical signiﬁcance
So eHarmony is statistically better than Match based on marital satisfaction, but PoF is just too dinky to tell. Also, Yahoo! (Yahoo! Personals) no longer exists, and Yahoo! now uses Match.
Also, note that of the authors, one is an advisor to eHarmony, one is married to an advisor to eHarmony and one is a former director of eHarmony.
Re: I've been using "the internet" (whatever that is) ...
Oh, I assumed they got married in "real-life" and just met online.
No links for eHarmony and Yahoo!, but a link for PoF?
What a load of bollocks!
Imagine where you have two Gmails. One sucks, is "free" and is actually called Hotmail. Another is alright (at best) but costs money and is called Outlook. A third is called Gmail, pretty good, and is "free". A fourth is alright, free, and is called Thunderbird. A fifth [etc....] The one that the consumers considers the best value is the one that the consumer will use. That's called competition.
I agree it's sad that since everything has moved to ad-based cloud services, there's no competition in the market. Or to be more clear, I would, if it weren't a complete delusional fantasy spawned by a FREE AD-SUPPORTED media site.
The entire concept that content providers are forcing consumers to have unlimited access to the internet is completely ludicrous. Limited access plans are common, and becoming the norm with mobile access. I am unaware of how it's content providers and not service providers who are forcing unlimited access onto consumers, nor am I really clear on how it hurts. The cost for internet is almost completely overhead, and is therefore distributed equally. The amount or duration of usage is pretty much equal. Person A uses the internet for porn for an half-hour, and downloads 100MB, compared to Person B who uses the internet for 3 hours playing a game, and downloads 500MB, are actually equal. They both used the internet once. Nonetheless, even though I don't understand how the author thinks that the days of pay-as-you-go service plans were better, they are certainly welcome to use a pay-as-you-go service, since Google, et. al., have been unsuccessful in completely destroying the internet access industry.
Although I'm completely confused as to the point, I have a suspicion it's that there's no tax on free products, despite the fact that someone is paying for them, and that Google makes loads and loads of money. If that's the point, then the article could have skipped all the bull, fantasy, misinformation and outright lies, and just said, "We should tax Google and other corporations."