What everyone gets wrong about the 2015 Ashley Madison scandal

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Nature of Ashley Madison’s “service”

  • Many argue the core story isn’t a data breach but that AM was largely a scam: ~95% men, fake female profiles, minimal real-world hookups.
  • Bots (and possibly “tool‑assisted humans”) sent low-effort messages; men paid per reply, turning the site into a monetized fantasy channel rather than a genuine affair platform.
  • Some note AM effectively prevented most users from physically cheating because they mainly interacted with bots.

Comparison to other dating and scam sites

  • Several commenters say this was widely known and similar tactics existed across online dating for years.
  • Bootstrapping fake profiles and incentives that keep users paying (rather than successfully pairing off) are described as industry-wide issues.
  • Examples include claims of other big sites sending “fake” messages near subscription expiry and early Reddit using sock-puppet accounts (though those were human-run).
  • Debate over whether “all dating sites” are scams vs AM being an extreme case.

Loneliness, fantasy, and value of bot interactions

  • Some see the AM story as evidence of a broader loneliness or intimacy problem; others say it’s more about sexual desire and fantasy than loneliness.
  • Comparisons are drawn to porn and romance novels: AM sold fantasy but misrepresented it as real prospects, which is where many locate the fraud.
  • Separate discussion notes modern explicit AI sex/relationship chatbots where users do know they are talking to AI and still find value.

Morality: cheating, intent, and “attempted infidelity”

  • Strong condemnation of cheating appears alongside nuanced views about “just” making an account or flirting.
  • Many argue intent matters: signing up and actively trying to cheat is morally close to actual infidelity, similar to “attempted” crimes.
  • Others stress a big difference between momentary online exploration and following through physically.
  • Debates invoke analogies to police entrapment and fake drug or hitman stings: is the key harm the intent, the act, or the outcome?

Public reaction, stigma, and victims

  • Some note that coverage emphasized salacious real affairs, underplaying the bot angle.
  • Discussion of “prominent people” caught up, suicides mentioned, and how sympathy is limited because victims were trying to cheat.
  • Questions remain about specific mechanics (e.g., how the “Affair Guarantee” was honored) and are flagged as unclear.