DATING WEBSITES ABUSE THE PUBLIC’S PRIVACY AND HARVEST ELECTION DATA
THE PERFECT DATE ON YOUR DATING WEBSITES IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED FAKE THAT YOU WILL NEVER MEET IN-PERSON! The dating websites that sell you scam profiles are: AnastasiaDate, Ashley Madison, Bumble, Coffee Meets Bagel, Cupid.com, Hinge, JDate, Match.com, OkCupid (OkC), POF (PlentyofFish), Tinder and all of the IAC and Match Group Cartel. Artificial intelligence has given its verdict on what the ‘ideal’ human body type is – and the results have sparked concerns. Unrealistic and damaging body image stereotypes promoted on social media have been highlighted in the worrying recent study by The Bulimia Project, that used AI image-generating software. Researchers from The Bulimia Project, an organisation focusing on publicising research around eating disorders, body image and mental health, used AI platforms Dall-E 2, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney, to create the “perfect body”. By producing and analysing multiple images, they investigated the idealised body types being promoted aiming to shed light on the detrimental impact of stereotypes on mental health and self-esteem. The AI-generated images showcasing the “perfect” female body revealed a prevalent preference for more petite women, with Midjourney producing the most unrealistic representations. Similarly, the images of the “perfect” male body resembled heavily photoshopped versions of bodybuilders, giving an unrealistic representation of the male physique. Match.com is now the number one place for hookers in the world. 80% of match.com users who are not fake profiles found to be prostitutes or gold-diggers, per https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/22/reddit-bans-escort-subreddits
MATCH.COM AND OKCUPID ARE ACTUALLY LEFT WING POLITICAL APPS. Swipe Left, Swipe Right: Political Campaigning Invades Dating Apps. Young people are on Tinder, Bumble, Grindr and other dating apps, so political strategists are too, promoting their favorite candidates. ‘I’m only matching with voters.’ When New Yorker Jen Winston connected last month with Spencer from Georgia on Tinder, finding true love wasn’t her priority. “Why are you so far away from me?” Spencer messaged Ms. Winston on the swipe-based dating app…. MORE: https://www.wsj.com/articles/swipe-left-swipe-right-political-campaigning-invades-dating-apps-1541182048
Match.com dating sites spy on you and rape your privacy. Handing over your personal data is now often the cost of romance, as online dating services and apps vacuum up information about their users’ lifestyle and preferences. Why it matters: Dating app users provide sensitive information like drug usage habits and sexual preferences in hopes of finding a romantic match. How online dating services use and share that data worries users,according to an Axios-SurveyMonkey poll, but the services nonetheless have become a central part of the modern social scene.What they know: Everything you put on your profile, including drug use and health status. Web trackers can examine your behavior on a page and how you answer key personal questions. JDate and Christian Mingle, for example, both use a tracker called Hotjar that creates an aggregate heat map of where on a web page users are clicking and scrolling. Every time you swipe right or click on a profile. “These can be very revealing things about someone, everything from what your kinks are to what your favorite foods are to what sort of associations you might be a part of or what communities you affiliate with,” says Shahid Buttar, director of grassroots advocacy for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. How you’re talking to other people. A reporter for the Guardian recently requested her data from Tinder and received hundreds of pages of data including information about her conversations with matches. Where you are. Location data is a core part of apps like Tinder. “Beyond telling an advertiser where someone might physically be at a given time, geolocation information can provide insights into a person’s preferences, such as the stores and venues they frequent and whether or not they live in an affluent neighborhood,” says former FTC chief technologist Ashkan Soltani.
Popular dating websites broadly collect information on their users for advertising purposes from the minute they first log on to the site, according to an analysis by the online privacy company Ghostery of the websites for OkCupid, Match.com, Plenty of Fish, Christian Mingle, JDate and eHarmony. (Ghostery, which performed the analysis for Axios, lets people block ad trackers as they browse the web.) Popular services broadly track their users while they search for potential matches and view profiles. OkCupid runs 10 advertising trackers during the search and profile stages of using its site, Ghostery found, while Match.com runs 63 — far exceeding the number of trackers installed by other services. The number and types of trackers can vary between sessions. The trackers can collect profile information. Match.com runs 52 ad trackers as users set up their profiles, Plenty of Fish runs 21, OkCupid runs 24, eHarmony runs 16, JDate runs 10 and Christian Mingle runs nine. The trackers could pick up where users click or where they look, says Ghostery product analyst Molly Hanson, but it’s difficult to know for sure. “If you’re self-identifying as a 35 year-old male who makes X amount of money and lives in this area, I think there’s a wealth of personal information that should be pretty easy to capture in a cookie and then send to your servers and package it and add it to a user profile,” says Jeremy Tillman, the company’s director of product management. Many of these trackers come from third parties. OkCupid installed seven ad trackers to watch users as they set up their profiles. Another 11 came from third parties at the time Ghostery ran its analysis. Trackers include data companies that often sell data to other companies looking to target people, Hanson says.
Match Group owns a number of dating services, including Tinder and OkCupid. The privacy policies say user data can be shared with other Match Group-owned services. What they’re saying: A spokesperson for Match Group says in a statement said that data collected by its companies “enables us to make product improvements, deliver relevant advertisements and continually innovate and optimize the user experience.” “Data collected by ad trackers and third parties is 100% anonymized,” the spokesperson says. “Our portfolio of companies never share personally identifiable information with third parties for any purpose.” The primary business model of the industry is still based around subscriptions rather than targeting ads based on personal data, notes Eric Silverberg, the CEO of gay dating app Scruff. I would argue that the incentive to share information is actually lower for dating businesses than it is for media businesses and news sites. … We have subscription services and our members pay us for the services we provide and the communities we create,” he says. Why you’ll hear about this again: Researchers routinely uncover security risks related to dating apps. A security firm recently claimed to have found security flaws in Tinder. The 2015 Ashley Madison hack resulted in the personal data of users of the site, which purported to facilitate infidelity, being exposed.The FTC last week warned of dating app scams. Match.com sued for tricking and lying to all of it’s users. Match.com allegedly tricked hundreds of thousands of users into buying subscriptions by sending them fake love interest ads, according to a lawsuit filed by the FTC. The company gained nearly 500,000 subscriptions by alerting users of connections known to be fake. The FTC claims the dating site also lured customers with deceitful promotions, and later made it difficult for them to dispute charges and cancel subscriptions. Match.com CEO Hesam Hosseini denied the FTC’s claims in an email to executives. The Federal Trade Commission has sued online-dating service Match Group Inc. for allegedly using fake love-interest advertisements to trick hundreds of thousands of users into buying subscriptions on Match.com.
Quit playing games with our hearts, says the Federal Trade Commission: . With its new explosive lawsuit against Match (which owns Match, Tinder, Hinge, and OkCupid), the Federal Trade Commission signals the start of a consumer-fraud crackdown in the online-dating market. Most interesting among its several salacious allegations is that Match enticed basic (free) users to purchase premium subscriptions by notifying them that they had received “matches” in their premium inboxes knowing that the “matches” were from scammers, not real love interests. Only time (and lengthy discovery) will tell whether Match forwarding these supposed “matches” was a product of malicious intent or a benign algorithm. But online-dating apps and services should be on notice that the Federal Trade Commission does not take consumer fraud of the heart lightly. #consumerprotection #match #socialmedia #onlinedating #advertising
A league out of their own: Truth be told, cancelling a subscription to anything can be a chore, but it’s even worse when it’s one tied to emotions https://lnkd.in/e8jaqRK #advertising #dating #psychology #match #relationships
Why does social engineering work so well? Because it involves humans and emotions. Match.com used social engineering to convert unsuspecting users into paying members. The social costs and damage to Match’s reputation will likely be long-lasting. In fact, in a 2018 survey, 81% of respondents stated they would lose trust in a brand if the product or service didn’t live up to the company’s promise and 78% due to a poor customer service experience. Consumer trust is sacred. Maintaining this trust includes always practicing high-quality.
Internet dating sites abuse their users in the most horrific ways. They now all share their ‘ai’ software and databases and that means that they share all of the scammers, AI bots, sex solicitors, players, cheaters poly, and tons of green card scamming 3rd world country profiles that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS NOW INFESTED WITH!
For match.com horrors see the user reports at:
For Bumble horrors see the user reports at:
For Eharmony horrors see the user reports at:
For Cupid.com horrors see the user reports at:
For Zoosk horrors see the user reports at:
For OKCUPID horrors see the user reports at:
EVERY, internet dating site is now a fake profile-based, privacy harvesting, political spying, computerized scam service operating off of your emotional vulnerability in order to profit off of your basic needs.
Online dating companies are fraud companies. They purchased a AI, and that is for manipulating you and getting you to go through the rat maze as they want you:
All the naive people on hinge think its people from outside creating these “model” profiles. its match group themselves:
Instead of using their advanced algorithms to keep the platforms friendly and clean, they purposely do this.
In the modern world, there is no way to meet singles without the internet and corporate exploiters like IAC, Inc., Match Group and other ‘corporate vagina vultures’ knowing that they can openly sucker you, in plain sight, and get away with it. In America, the FTC, and other agencies, never punish them because they pay politicians big bribes. President’s family members and staff own stock in these companies.
People that work at dating site companies are either out-sourced data entry contractors from Asian regions and/or college age kids with no comprehension of how life really works. They are usually bored at work so they read all of your emails and text messages. If you mention something political that goes against their zealotry then you get your sexier potential dates replaced with fat people or you get your profile shadow-banned. In fact, if you mention anything that one of these influencer-beholden, naive, worker bees does not agree with, you get shit-listed. Just remember this: if you typed it on a dating site, it is archived and searched on all the dating sites shared databases FOREVER!
Many people find that Match.com and big corporate dating sites are a stain on humanity and a cancer on the internet. Match.com and big corporate dating sites are sometimes digital sex traffickers, exploiters of emotions and a data rapists. The Match.Com bosses are known to bribe politicians and lobby the FTC to keep from getting shut down.
Match.com and it’s affiliates are the worst of the bunch. They need to be put out of business forever. They needs to be sued by each member of the public that used the site. The company also needs to be sued by the FTC, The FEC, The DOJ, The FCC and various class action citizen groups. Match.com sends your most intimate and private data to political fronts, marketing companies and government spy agencies.
Match.com, and it’s corporate clone sites, are corporate political honey-traps designed to harvest your data, emotions, psychological and political profiles at your expense. You are being raped when you use Match.com.
This book details the 100% legal spy agency tactics and legal tools to put evil Match.com out of business. If you care about doing good, then you want to undertake these efforts to exterminate Match.Com.
Match.com does not care about you, your social life or your personal needs. They care about spying on you for their political and corporate bosses. They know you are addicted to sex and social connection. They exploit those universal emotional needs for profit and social manipulation.
This book goes beyond “who pays for the meal”, and delves into the sinister political and social crime base that Match.com covertly exploits around the globe. You have to really want to know why U.S. Senators are involved in sex sites: ( https://madworldnews.com/pelosi-child-prostitution-ring/ )
( https://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/nancy-pelosi-major-scandal/ )
( http://redwhiteandright.com/skeleton-pelosis-closet-liberals/ ) and why so many name brand politicians have been outed in sex site leaks:
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach )
( https://medium.com/lifes-funny/my-match-com-account-was-hacked-782560c2fcf7 )
( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/19/we-are-frequently-under-attack-match-com-says-hackers-are-after-its-data/ )
Within minutes of your use of their dating site, a political and psychological profile has been created about you and is being used by some of the most nefarious corporate, political and government entities.
Every word, every text message, every mouse click, every mouse direction, all of your audio and video…everything.. is being harvested to harm you on Match.com. Every image you post on Match.com is harvested by many parties and cross checked across the internet to find all of your other social media sites, bank records, medical records, traffic camera shots and other things you don’t want the world to see.
Match.com’s dating corporation knows that you are trapped. Those corporations have no souls. They see you as data cows to be harvested for government agencies, political parties, competitor research and marketing manipulation. Any picture you upload on Match is instantly cross checked across face scan databases globally, using the same software that the FBI, CIA, DEA, IRS and NSA use. By joining Match, you just said “Here I Am” to every investigator, hacker, collection agency, marketing service and enemy you could ever want to avoid.
Today, a single one of your images on Match.com is being scanned by software called “ClearView ai”, “Yandex Image tracker”, “Google Image Bot” and the Chinese secret police. Within 10 minutes of capturing your image off of that dating site, their computers assemble every bank record, medical record, lawsuit, property ownership record, complaint about you and every other dirty detail about you that you never wanted made public.
It is not just big spy-guys that scan your Match.com profile; Any 14 year old with a notebook computer can do this. In this book, you will see details of thousands of such technologies, in use today, that can end your life and social standing tomorrow.
This is the information they never told you in main stream news. This is how to protect yourself from Match.com.
As proven by scientific statistics, a majority of the “people” you will encounter on Match.com dating sites are: 1.) Russian scammers, 2.) Guys pretending to be girls, 3.) Robotic software seeking to scam you, 4.) Narcissists, who will never meet you in-person, seeking self-validation, 5.) Sex workers, 6.) Gold diggers, 7.) Free dinner seekers, 8.) Recently broken-up people who are addicted to their past partner and will, eventually, go back to them, 9.) Oxytocin brain chemical junkies, 10.) Single parents looking for a new person to pay the mortgage, 11.) Trans-sexuals trying out their look to see if they can fool you, 12.) Marathon daters going out with a different person every night to see which one can buy them the best dinners and show tickets and other non-qualified subjects.
This collaboratively edited book was created by the public to educate the rest of the public. It will horrify you, shock you, amaze you, enlighten you and clearly illuminate the fact that Match.com is truly breaking all of the rules of morality.
Most people that sign up for Match.com, or it’s clone online dating sites, cancel it within a few weeks because of the trauma of trying to wade through the terrible things that happen to users of the system.
Every Match.com online dater is looking for: marriage, sex, free food, money, social revenge, distraction, entertainment, narcissistic validation, arm-candy, friends, a baby-daddy or related goals. The corporation, though, behind Match.com, is only looking for one thing: Your digital and political data.
Let’s take a deeper look at Match.com as our writers go deep under-cover inside Match ( including working undercover in their offices ) …
Who Is Match.Com?
Match calls itself an “online dating service”, but it is really a spy operation, with web sites serving over 50 countries in twelve languages. Its headquarters are in Dallas, Texas. The company has offices in Dallas, West Hollywood, San Francisco, Tokyo, Rio de . The Match consortium sells it’s data to the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, DEA and DNC via Axciom and other data brokers. The USPS social media surveillance service uses it to hunt political party members who oppose the Obama Administration.
While you may know that Chelsea Clinton is part of it, the whole tale is much more sordid.
In 1993, Match.com was founded by Gary Kremen and Peng T. Ong in San Francisco. At the beginning, Match.com was the name of the website, while the company that operated it was formally named Electric Classifieds Inc. Early on, Kremen was assisted by Ong and Steve Klopf, who helped in the design of the initial system, and Simon Glinsky, who co-wrote its business plan, developed product designs including matching criteria, services to LGBT communities, created business models and rollout marketing strategies and made early hires. Fran Maier later joined the company as its director of marketing. According to a retrospective from The Atlantic, Maier helped to implement Match.com’s business strategy, which included a subscription model and the inclusion of diverse communities, including women, technology professionals, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. Match.com went live as a free beta in early 1995, and was first profiled in Wired magazine that same year.
Gary Kremen and Steve Klopf are shown in California public records as 2544 Re, LP which is a California Domestic Limited Partnership filed On April 13, 2007. The company’s filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 200710300012.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Steve Klopf (Later with the highly sexually driven IDEO design group, where staff members sleep with each other ) and is located at 23 Jules Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112. The company’s mailing address is 23 Jules Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112.
The company has 2 principals on record. The principals are Gary Kremen from San Diego CA and Steve Klopf from San Francisco CA. Gary Kremen was marketing SEX.COM.
From it’s very roots, perversion and dirty money fueled the fires.
David Lawlor published a report about how the sick story of early Match.com as Sex.com reads like a bad Hollywood movie script.
The California public records record:
“Kremen, Father & Partners, LLC is a California Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed On May 13, 1999. The company’s filing status is listed as Canceled and its File Number is 199913710035.
The Registered Agent on file for this company is Philip Father and is located at 50 California St, Ste 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. The company’s principal address is 50 California St, Ste 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111 and its mailing address is 50 California St, Ste 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111.
The company has 2 principals on record. The principals are Gary Kemen from San Francisco CA and Philip Father from San Francisco CA.” Philip Father And Gary Kremen had a Victorian building on 3rd Street in the Portrero Hill neighborhood in San Francisco, not far from Nancy Pelosi’s “Goat Hill Pizza”. All of their files got leaked. So the story goes…
Boy gets domain name, boy loses domain name, boy gets domain name back. Add in millions of dollars flying about, a possible run-in with Mexican authorities and, naturally, a climactic courtroom finale.
But real life is always stranger than fiction, and the case of Gary Kremen versus Stephen Michael Cohen et alia is no different. No movie could fully reveal the oddities and quirks of the case of the disputed Sex.com domain name.
A trial in a San Francisco court Thursday will bring the two men together, both hoping for very different endings to the tale.
The story begins in 1994 when Gary Kremen registered the name Sex.com with domain name registrar Network Solutions (NSOL), for free and without any official contract — the way things were often done in the early days of the Web. At the time, the Internet was in its infancy — Amazon.com (AMZN: Research, Estimates) was still a year away.
After successfully launching the online dating service Match.com, Kremen turned his entrepreneurial attention to Sex.com. He hadn’t developed a Web site to accompany the Sex.com nomenclature immediately after registering it. The domain name had sat empty.
While Kremen was busy developing his online dating service and registering Sex.com, Stephen Michael Cohen sat in federal prison serving a 42-month sentence for bankruptcy fraud. The prior felon had orchestrated a number of impersonation and deception schemes in the past. Cohen finished his bankruptcy fraud term in February 1995, and left federal prison.
Then the tale’s first plot twist began. In October 1995, Network Solutions received a letter from a company called Online Classifieds Inc. stating that control of the Sex.com domain name was to be turned over to Cohen. The writer of the letter is listed as Sharyn Dimmick.
Dimmick, who was Kremen’s roommate until April 1995, did not know Cohen, says Kremen’s lawyer Pamela Urueta of San Francisco-based Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.
Network Solutions obliged and transferred control of the domain name to Cohen.
Following the transfer, Online Classifieds Inc. informed Network Solutions that all correspondence would have to take place via mail or telephone — because Online Classifieds Inc. did not have Internet access, Urueta says. Online company, no Internet access.
Following the transfer, Cohen developed the Sex.com Website and turned it in to a multimillion dollar venture. How many millions? It’s hard to tell, because Cohen has refused to supply the court with accounting information for the Web site.
But the online pornography sector averaged $2.7 million per day in earnings in 1999, according to a U.S. House of Representatives report. The Internet pornography industry also represents the most consistently successful e-commerce product on the Web.
However, despite the huge amount of cash the Web site was generating, something was rotten in the land of online titillation. Kremen learned from a friend that Sex.com was operating as a pornographic Web site, he says. Attorneys were called, a lawsuit was filed, and the most bizarre domain name battle in the Internet’s short history began.
The first item in question was the letter written to Network Solutions with Dimmick listed as the author. Urueta believes Cohen saw the Internet was becoming a global phenomenon after his release from prison and decided Sex.com could be a lucrative domain name on which to base a business. After finding the name was already taken, Urueta says, Cohen decided to deceptively gain control of the Web property.
She contends that Cohen forged the letter after learning who Dimmick was, as the first step in his plot to take over the domain name. Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Dorband of the law firm DuBoff Dorband Cushing and King in Portland, Ore., says Cohen did not forge the letter.
In the end it didn’t matter who authored the transfer memo, because in November 2000, the U.S. District Court in San Jose found the letter was fraudulent and therefore the transfer of Sex.com from Kremen to Cohen was void. Sex.com was Kremen’s again.
But Cohen argued that the letter and the court’s view was irrelevant. He now claimed Sex.com was his before Network Solutions received the letter from Dimmick. In fact, Cohen said he had been using the Sex.com name as long ago as 1979.
Before heading to federal prison, Cohen had run a bulletin board for swingers and operated it from 1979 into the 1980s. One of the areas on the bulletin board used the three-letter file extension “.com” and was preceded by the word “sex,” Dorband says.
Trademark law does not require one to register a name to own it, but simply to use the name for a period of time. Citing that law, Cohen claimed that since he had used the term Sex.com since 1979, the moniker was his.
The judge didn’t buy it.
For Kremen, the only matter remaining now was the amount of money he should be rewarded from the Web site’s earnings while under Cohen’s leadership. At the November 2000 hearing, Judge James Ware ordered Cohen, along with two other corporate defendants, to place $25 million in the court’s control, pending final judgment and assessment of damages. The judge also ordered Cohen not to transfer any assets.
It’s a very strange case. Kremen was big with the Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom crew and set about pitching himself as a “Green Energy Guru” for Sacramento. Steve Klopf got a job at IDEO Design after that gig, where is bosses have asked staff not to mention the SEX.COM thing.
In defiance of those two orders, Cohen did not place $25 million in the court’s bank and did transfer money to accounts outside of the United States, says Urueta. She adds that Cohen has been sending money to banks in Luxembourg and other such countries for some time in order to avoid seizure of his assets. Cohen’s lawyer confirms that the $25 million was not placed, and that money was transferred after the court order.
Cohen was held in contempt on March 5 for violating the court’s orders and for failing to appear in court on another date. The judge’s decision steming from those violations will disallow Cohen to present evidence at the trial scheduled Thursday. The judge also issued a warrant for Cohen’s arrest for failing to comply with court orders.
Cohen could not be reached for comment. Network Solutions declined requests for an interview.
Gary Kremen “It’s a very strange case,” says Dorband. “It has some unusual characters, who really are more alike than they are different. I think if they [Kremen and Cohen] had met each other in some different forum they would actually be friends.”
Since Kremen has regained control of Sex.com, he says he has toned down the nature of the content and may eventually shift the Web site’s focus away from pornography and make it an educational property.
“I still need to figure out exactly what’s going on with it [the Web site],” Kremen says. “But I don’t really want it to be a porno site.”
Dorband says the case sets no real precedent for future domain name battles.
“This whole case is really an anomaly,” Dorband says. “Everything happened when, for a brief time, Network Solutions had no written agreement with its customers. Now, with contracts, you also have property rights to your domain name. If that would have been the case to start with, then who knows what might have happened in this situation.
Founder Kremen left the company in March 1996, after disagreements with venture capitalists. In 1997, Match.com was purchased by Cendant, who then sold it to IAC in 1999.
In September 2001, Match.com partnered with AOL and MSN, with the idea that Love@AOL and MSN Dating and Personals would allow a more diverse audience to gain access to Match.com.
In 2002 and early 2003, Match.com’s then CEO, Tim Sullivan, expanded Match.com into local dating with a service called MatchLive, where daters would meet in a public location for social activities and a form of speed dating.
In September 2004, Jim Safka replaced Sullivan as CEO. Safka was replaced as CEO by Thomas Enraght-Moony in 2007.[better source needed]
On November 10, 2005, a class action was filed by Matthew Evans against Match.com in federal court in Los Angeles alleging that Match.com employed fake members to send emails and go on dates with paying members. The suit was repudiated by IAC as baseless, and was later dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 25, 2007. Similar suits were filed in June 2009 and December 2010, with the judges ruling that Match.com did not break user agreements.
Do you see the trend here, yet? Match.com was forged in creepiness and built on slime-ball people with sinister motivations.
In January 2006, Match.com hired Dr. Phil McGraw as a celebrity spokesman.
In February 2021, Match Group acquired Hyperconnect, a technology company based in Seoul, Korea, for $1.73 billion.
In February 2009, IAC incorporated Match Group as a conglomerate of Match.com and other dating sites it owned. Also in February, it was announced that Match.com’s European operations would be sold to Meetic for 5 million Euros and a reported twenty-seven percent interest in the company. At the same time that this sale was announced, the current CEO Thomas Enraght-Moony stepped down, while IAC’s (Match.com’s parent company) Executive VP and General Counsel, Greg Blatt, took his place.
In July 2009, Match.com acquired People Media, which powered AOL Personals and operated BlackPeopleMeet.com and OurTime.com, from American Capital for $80 million. The following year, Match.com acquired SinglesNet, another dating site. In December 2010, Match.com’s CEO Greg Blatt was made CEO of parent company IAC.
In 2012, Match.com bought OkCupid, and Sam Yagan, OkCupid’s co-founder and CEO, became CEO of Match Group. That same year, Match.com announced Stir, an events service that was to offer local events each month for Match.com members to attend.
In April 2014, Match.com launched an updated mobile app with a feature called “Stream” which used location to match people based upon photographs, using similar algorithms as the mobile dating app Tinder. The platform’s membership auto-billing method has been criticized by customers for the lack of transparency.
In 2017, Yagan was replaced by Mandy Ginsberg as the CEO of Match.com’s parent company, Match Group.
A woman claiming she was raped by another person she met on Match.com sued the site in 2011. The woman and her lawyer wanted Match.com to start doing background checks on their users in order to prevent registered sex offenders from using the site. Match.com has responded that it would create many problems trying to get background information from all their users. Days after the lawsuit was filed, Match.com announced that the site would begin screening new members.
From 2011 to 2014, a man described by British police as a “sexual predator” contacted thousands of women through the website. He raped five of them. In March 2016 Derby Crown Court heard that four of the victims complained about the man to Match.com; one of the women was told that administrators could not do anything because he had not sent abusive messages through the site.
IAC is an American holding company that owns brands across 100 countries, mostly in media and Internet. The company is headquartered in New York City and incorporated in Delaware. Joey Levin, who previously led the company’s search & applications segment, has served as Chief Executive Officer since June 2015.
IAC’s largest shareholder, Liberty Media, exited the company in 2010, following a protracted dispute over the 2008 spinoffs. Liberty traded its IAC stock for $220 million in cash, plus ownership of Evite and Gifts.com. On the same day, Diller stepped down as CEO, though he remained as chairman and Match.com CEO Greg Blatt was appointed to succeed him. That same year, IAC acquired dating site Singlesnet and fitness site DailyBurn.
In January 2013, IAC acquired online tutoring firm Tutor.com. On August 3, 2013, IAC sold Newsweek to the International Business Times on undisclosed terms. On December 22, 2013, IAC fired their Director of Corporate Communications, Justine Sacco after an AIDS joke she posted to Twitter went viral, being re-tweeted and scorned around the world. The incident became a byword for the need for people to be cautious about what they post on social media.
In 2014, IAC acquired ASKfm for an undisclosed sum.
November 2015, IAC and Match Group announced the closing of Match Group’s previously announced initial public offering.
In May 2017, HomeAdvisor combined with Angie’s List, forming the new publicly traded company ANGI Homeservices Inc. The company made its stock market debut in October 2017. In October 2018, the ANGI made its first acquisition of on-demand platform Handy.
In July 2019, IAC made its largest investment ever in the world’s largest peer-to-peer car sharing marketplace, Turo. Later that year, IAC acquired Care.com. In December 2019, IAC and Match Group entered into an agreement providing for the full separation of Match Group from the remaining businesses of IAC.
In January 2020, IAC withdrew its financial backing for CollegeHumor and its sister websites and sold the websites to Chief Creative Officer Sam Reich. As a result of the restructuring, more than 100 employees of CollegeHumor were laid off. In February, IAC completed its $500 million acquisition of Care.com.
The Clinton Family own an interest in this operation. Anytime you are trying to date on Match.Com think about Chelsea Clinton and her Friend Ghislaine Maxwell ready your emails and texts on the Match.com servers.
The people that work in the lower staff ranks at Match are generally high-strung leftists woke rights activists who are not old enough to have fully developed brains. They party in clusters in sports bar and loud music club scenes and reinforce a party culture. They are mostly female and embrace “influencers”, “Instagram postings” and casual dating. They have a higher tatoo volume than the average corporation.
In July 2020, IAC and Match Group announced the successful completion of the separation of Match Group from the remaining businesses of IAC. As a result of the separation, Match Group’s dual class voting structure was eliminated and the interest in Match Group formerly held by IAC is now held directly by IAC’s shareholders. As of the separation, “new” IAC trades under the symbol “IAC” and “new” Match Group under the symbol “MTCH.” 
In August 2020, IAC announced it had invested a 12% stake in MGM Resorts International.
Match Group, Inc. is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, Ship, and OurTime totalling over 45 global dating companies. The company was owned by parent company IAC and in 2019, the company had 9.283 million subscribers, of which 4.554 million were in North America. In July 2020, Match Group became a separate, public company.
Match.Com and Attack service: Gawker Media/Gizmodo Media trade Staffer Ian Fette back and forth to share mass computerized political attack and political defamation tools developed at both outfits.
In February 2009, IAC incorporated Match Group as a conglomerate of Match.com and other dating sites it owned. In July 2009, Match Group’s Match.com acquired People Media from American Capital for $80 million in cash. People Media operated dating sites BlackPeopleMeet.com and OurTime, which became part of Match Group’s portfolio, and powered AOL Personals.
In February 2010, Match.com acquired dating site Singlesnet. In February 2011, Match Group acquired OkCupid for $50 million. OkCupid was the first free, advertising-based product added to the Match Group portfolio.
In 2012, online dating application Tinder was founded within Hatch Labs, a startup incubator run by parent company IAC. The application allowed users to anonymously swipe to like or dislike other profiles based on their photos, common interests and a small bio. On November 19, 2015, the company became a public company via an initial public offering.
In 2017, Match Group launched Tinder Gold, which established Tinder as the highest grossing non-gaming app globally. In the summer of 2017, the company offered to acquire Bumble for $450 million.
In January 2018, Mandy Ginsberg, formerly the CEO of Match North America, replaced Greg Blatt as CEO of the company.
In June 2018, Match Group acquired 51% ownership in dating app Hinge. The acquisition was intended to help diversify Match’s portfolio and appeal to a wider array of singles. In February 2019, Match Group fully bought out the company.
In July 2018, Match Group launched a Safety Advisory Council comprising a group of experts focused on preventing sexual assault across its portfolio of products. The council included #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke and worked with organizations like the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.
In August 2018, Tinder co-founder Sean Rad filed a $2 billion lawsuit against Match Group, claiming that Match Group and its parent company IAC purposely undervalued Tinder to avoid paying out stock options to the company’s original team. Rad and his co-plaintiffs also accused the former Tinder CEO, Greg Blatt, of sexual harassment. The company said that the allegations are “meritless”. In October 2019, Blatt filed a defamation lawsuit against Rad and Tinder founding member Rosette Pambakian seeking at least $50 million in damages.
In January 2019, Match Group partnered with media brand Betches to launch a dating app, called Ship, that allowed users to help their friends pick out potential dates.
In August 2019, the company acquired Harmonica, an Egyptian online dating service.
In January 2020, Match Group announced an investment and partnership with safety platform Noonlight. The partnership incorporated new safety tools in Match Group’s products, including emergency assistance, location tracking and photo verification.
In January 2020, Mandy Ginsberg stepped down as chief executive officer due to personal reasons. Shar Dubey, then President of Match Group, became the CEO of the company effective March 1, 2020.
In March 2020, Match Group became the first tech company to support the Earn It Act of 2020, a bipartisan bill to combat online child sexual exploitation.
In July 2020, the company completed the separation from IAC. The separation was the largest ever for IAC, as Match Group then had a market capitalization of $30 billion. After the separation, four new members joins Match Group’s board of directors: Stephen Baily, Melissa Brenner, Ryan Reynolds and Wendi Murdoch
In August 2020, amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, Match Group reported growing profit and revenue and surpassed 10 million subscribers across its portfolio.
In September 2020, Match Group joined others companies like Spotify and Epic Games to form the Coalition for App Fairness. The purpose is to combat Apple over its app store policies.
In February 2021, Match Group announced that it would be acquiring Seoul, Korea-based social network company Hyperconnect for $1.73 billion in both cash and stock. This deal is reportedly Match Group’s largest acquisition to date.
Also in February 2021, Match Group took legal action against dating app Muzmatch, the online Muslim dating app, calling the app a “Tinder Clone”. 
In 2019, the company was sued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for allegations of unfair and deceptive trade practices. According to the FTC’s civil complaint, the company used fake love interest ads to encourage free users to pay for premium subscription services on Match.com. Accounts that were flagged as suspicious or potentially fraudulent by the site were prevented from messaging paid subscribers but were allowed to continue messaging free users who were tricked into believing that the suspicious accounts were real users encouraging them to subscribe and connect with them. The company denied the allegations. The FTC further alleged that the company offered false promises of guarantees, failed to provide support to customers who unsuccessfully disputed charges, and made it overly difficult for users to cancel their subscriptions, which Match Group disputed as cherry-picked and misrepresenting internal emails. In September 2020, it was reported that the Department of Justice had closed its investigation into the FTC complaint.
THE DATING SITES YOU MUST AVOID AT ALL COSTS, AND SEEK TO BANKRUPT, ARE:
Black People Meet
Hawaya (formerly Harmonica)
Love Scout 24
Plenty of Fish
And any other facades that these digital manipulators pop up with.
You see, in reality, most internet dating sites are owned by the same crooked corporations and they should be PUT OUT OF BUSINESS. If not the exact same corporation, they are the same kinds of heartless corporate human manipulation machines. Do yourself and your friends a favor and file complaints about each of these dating sites at: http://www.ftc.gov/complaint
Here Is A Sampling Of What The World Says About Match.Com On The Internet
* When you post anything on Match.com, you activate over 100 companies around the globe that scan every single dating and social media site, every few minutes, for new profiles and harvest the posted photos. Your photos are instantly compared, via AI software and massive computer arrays, with every social media site (ie: Facebook, Linkedin, Google, Instagram, etc.) to reveal who you actually are and produce a digital dossier on you (that will be available on you forever). If you are in a lawsuit, or politics, that data will be used to harm and defame you. If you have assets, that data will be used to hack your bank accounts and medical records and blackmail you. By now, any educated person should already know this, as it is widely covered in the news. Anyone who pooh-poohs this is most likely a hacker using a fake dating or Linkedin profile. There are millions of fake dating and Facebook profiles operated by Russian and Chinese spies and data harvesters…
* Match.com’s culture has made online dating a bidding war for sex, free dinners and money. As a guy you will find that in New York City and the San Francisco Bay Area, all of the guys you are competing against make over $160,000.00 per year, have excellent condo’s, BMW’s and take girls to $100.+/per ticket shows. If you can’t compete with that then your entire online dating experience will consist of feeding one girl after another free food and then never hearing from them again. As a woman you will find that all of the women in those areas have big fake boobs, cow fat injected lips, visible abs, insectoid eyebrows, and deep dark spray tans and they WILL do anal, if you can’t compete with that then you are stuck dating used car salesmen who might take you to Denny’s. Big tech guys will dump you four weeks later because you are “old news” and they can get 100,000 other Instagram hookers and nasty girls on match.com any time they want to…
* Before your first blind meeting, exchange text numbers on your burner phones or you will likely not find each other, if you have never seen each other in 3D before, because many profiles on Match.com are fake shills who will never show up in-person…
* Famous dating site owners, like IAC, Match.com, okcupid, zoosk, farmers only, plenty of fish, etc., use your private information ILLICITLY by rigging the system exclusively for themselves and their crony insiders to gather information on you. Stay informed about corporate dating site face harvesting, privacy abuse, reading of users messages, selling users to political parties and other misdeeds. Your face on a dating site can lead to the hacking of your bank account in 10 minutes if an experienced hacker is using face comparison AI software across social networks. Protect yourself by reading http://lifebooks.net/Web_Safety_Part_One.html ..
* A “Date” means that both parties are agreeing to meet based on the belief that both parties believe there is a chance of sex occurring. A “Hook-Up” means that both parties are agreeing to meet just for sex. Match.com exploits both of these concepts to sucker users into extending their subscriptions…
* If you have to describe your status as “It’s Complicated”, then you are a SLUT! Quantum Physics is complicated. Whether or not you have had sex with someone that you may have sex with again is not complicated. Either be single or say you are “Dating Around”. Don’t insult people’s intelligence by using the “It’s Complicated” excuse. People on Match.Com who say “it’s complicated are just dating a different person every night…
* Over 50 groups scan every photo on a dating site to look for political exploitation opportunities. Do not think that your dating profiles are exempt from scanning by political party operatives. Many of the big dating sites sell your data to the DNC and/or RNC…
* Russian, Nigerian and Chinese “Fake Profile Farms” have placed millions of fake profiles on all of the dating sites. Some dating sites are MOSTLY fake profiles. When you write to them, expert texting scammers, or AI bots, respond to you in an extremely convincing manner. Never believe someone is real from a dating site until you have met them in person in front of a local coffee shop. Match.Com covertly supports these fake profiles because it is free content. Match officials say otherwise but they are lying.
* “influencers” on the internet are: FAKE, LIARS WHO BOUGHT THEIR “LIKES” FROM CHINESE CLICK-FARMS, NARCISSISTS, FAKES, FAKES and FAKES! Match.com loves “influencers” because their BS creates free content…
* Have you noticed how most of the sign-up questions on sites like Match.com and OKCupid are questions about your political beliefs? Political party operatives are also getting a copy of those answers on some of these sites…
* Never communicate more than a few generic sentences (to arrange to meet) over an internal messaging system on any Match.com, or related, dating site. Everything you type on a Match dating site message system is often read by bored staff at the dating site, harvested by government analysts, scanned by marketing companies for phone numbers and email addresses, read by hackers and archived for years for future legal and political analysis. Intention analysis of your words is sold to political parties and other third parties. Get your communication OFF of the dating site ASAP. Never say too much about yourself or place very much private data on a dating site. The messaging system inside a dating App is one of the most dangerous threats to your privacy…
* A unique way for guys to get hot girls paid for by the Russian spy agency the KGB (Also known as the FSB). KGB Girlfriends can be really fun. As a guy, you create a pretend hot technology start-up company in Silicon Valley, New York City or Los Angeles. You buy a lot of buzz in tech PR in those areas and make it look like you have some hot secret technology that can change global media or internet or energy. Then you attend tons of tech parties that are advance promoted. The Russian and Chinese secret service will target you to try to steal your technology. They will have impossibly hot girls approach you to date you. They are called “Honey Traps”. The Russians and Chinese have placed thousands of them on Match.com, Plenty of Fish, OK Cupid and all of the big corporate dating sites. These planted women will approach you. You have sex with them and you secretly know that the spy agencies are paying for your sex. You just never tell them any ACTUAL secrets. You plan out a careful set of disinformation that leaves out some key tech points and tell them your fake secrets. Russia has thousands of these “Red Sparrows” planted around the USA in major cities. If your technology is hot enough, they will charter a plane from the Ukraine and fly a few dozen of these tech hookers in to target you. Russian hookers are VICTORIA SECRET HOT! They are trained in sex universities. The downside: If you let on that you know they are spies they could kill you with poison or simulated heart attacks or heroin overdoses. So: The KGB will pay for all of your sex but you have to game your pretext quite well or you could get killed like Tony Hseigh or Forrest Hayes or Ravi Kumar or… But these Chinese and Russian spy girls are soooooo hot!..
* If you have been on many Match.com related dating sites you have had a huge number of first date/meetups but they ended in failure since you are not in a relationship with those people. You may have dated people longer but those relationships did not work out either or you would not be on a dating site. The thinking that “getting to know someone” has any value in dating has already been proven wrong by your own past experiences. ‘Waiting in dating leads to undating’. Most marriages end in divorce and that proves that you can never “get to know someone”. All people dating are always looking for an imperfection so they can rationalize the: “Delete”…”Next”…” option to switch to the next person. The so-called “perfect” match can never be found. The Grass-Is-Always-Greener-On-The-Other-Side-Of-The-Fence never ends in online dating. You CAN get a rapid paced pseudo-feeling of “social action” by going through many people but that is shallow. The only thing that works is to take the next person, that is not too ugly, and partner with them and craft a relationship TOGETHER…
* People on Match.com dating sites with photos that look like they are fashion models or with pictures that have advertising type poses and make-up could be sociopath narcissists. If they look like they should have people lined up to date them, they probably do. There are a certain number of angry divorcee-type people, who hate the other gender because of a bad divorce and want to punish all those from that other gender by being mean to them online. Watch out for internet hotties who just have a “LOOK AT ME” insecurity complex and have no intention of ever meeting anybody. See: https://videosift.com/video/Narcissists-and-SOCIAL-MEDIA
* Everyone on an internet dating site is presumed to be open to having sex, otherwise they would be on Facebook or Meet-Up if they were just looking for a social herd interaction sorority type hang out. Don’t be offended if sex comes up earlier in the conversation that you expect. That is the nature of the internet. You both need to text each other that you BOTH agree to “a monogamous, committed relationship”, in writing, or you need to expect the other person to be sleeping with the other members on the dating site on the nights that they are not with you.
* Before dating, make sure your doctor has tested you for: 1.) HIV (https://www.mylabbox.com/how-much-does-an-hiv-test-cost/); 2.) Hepatitis C; 3.) Herpes Simplex II; 4.) Syphilis (https://www.mylabbox.com/test-for-syphilis/); 5.) Chlamydia (https://www.mylabbox.com/chlamydia-101-the-facts/); 6.) Gonorrhea (https://www.mylabbox.com/clap-gonorrhea-symptoms-in-women/); 7.) Trichomoniasis; 8.) HPV; 9.) Mycoplasma; 10.) Ureaplasma; 11.) COVID; 12.) Anal sore; 13.) Vaginal Fungus. Consider getting a prescription for the AIDS prevention drug: “Prep” and try using “topical microbicide STD gel” to kill STD’s, especially on Match.com because Match.com users have the highest rate of STD’s…
* Facial symmetry and social similarity herd programming are the two biggest factors you are up against in on-line dating. Try to get past these biological subliminal conditioning factors and date outside your “comfort zone”. Don’t date people that look exactly like your social cliques faces. Try not to date people that all look like they go to the same frat house or sorority. Match.com software favors frat house and sorority looking people…
* Match.com dating has put men in the position of being used for free dinners while each woman has many other men buying them dinners the same week. Internet dating has made men hyper-sensitive about being “used”. The first few dates from an internet connection must be “dutch” these days, to avoid conflict…
* Men who date via Match.Com sites will eventually always get sex, so they expect it more than usual because the internet changes the numbers game…
* Billionaires from Google, Facebook, Netflix and Linkedin are hard to date because most of them have a number of sex workers (hookers and rent-boys) they retain weekly plus they have an account with every dating site and a “social connections” manager. The nights that they are not with you, they are with a person from another dating site and they get bored of each person after a couple of weeks and dump them in their constant search for new distractions. If you can get pregnant by one of them, though, you can get a phenomenal payday…
* People who have many photos but only photos of their face are usually fat on Match.com. Beware…
* On Match.Com, move fast on new members that just joined a dating site because people quit, or get scooped up, as soon as they appear as “new meat” on a dating site for the first time, most internet daters move fast in order to avoid missing out. If you don’t get to date a new member within a week or so, they will have been taken by someone else or they will have found out how tough dating sites are and quit. You have about 11 days to make your case to a new member or they will be gone. If you are a guy, you are competing against thousands of other guys all trying to sound richer, more fun, more together, more employed, sexier and more interesting than you. The early bird gets the worm and it is truly a numbers game online. This is the harsh, but true reality of it…even more so in a post-Pandemic world…
* On Match.Com, the question: “HOW ARE YOU STILL SINGLE?” or “What’s the catch?” or “You must have a secret wife”? implies that someone may not be “perfect”. In fact: Nobody is perfect. Every Silicon Valley CEO beat his wife, cheated on taxes and stocks, hires hookers and abused their workers. Their divorce court filings prove it. Even though they had chiseled symmetrical facial features and drove an over-priced race car, they almost all turned out to be dirty when you scratched the surface. Outsiders are never allowed into their club, so, hopefully, you won’t get programmed to do those things. People’s faults are usually the same as their abilities. Some people love them, some don’t. Employers hire them for those peculiarities. You’d have to hang out with the live version (not the internet facade) to see. There is no living human that does not have things about them you will not like. Most people are programmed to have an extreme reaction if they hear a word like “drinking”, “partying”, “organized”, etc. if their last break-up was with a person who had a problem with one of those things. Oxytocin, and other brain chemicals, program non-rational trigger-reaction thinking into people over baggage from their bad break-ups. The smarter you are, the easier it is for you to venture outside the social bubble you were conditioned to, previously, operate in. Doing things with another human takes work. ANYBODY can get along with anybody if they just try. The internet makes people reject others, for no valid reason, just because it is a push-button machine operation. Humans are organic. The internet is a heartless machine. You should only decide about people from in-person meetups. First time meetings over the internet cannot possibly ever work. You have to meet people, in-person, in the real world. If a person online is not willing to meet in-person, then there is no legitimate reason for them to have a profile up unless they are a Russian troll or free-meal hunter…
The Spies And Hired Character Assassins Of Match.com
Over 1000 profiles on Match.com, and it’s related sites, are spies that are there entirely to attack others! Since 2008, one San Francisco business man has recorded over 20 of these spy girls recording him and reporting back to his competitor. He has placed a private investigation firm on long-term contract to hunt down and prosecute these spider-women who sell entrapment services and operate under cover of Match.com’s guise.
In another case, a network of activists, aided by a British former spy, mounted a campaign during the Trump administration, using Match.com, to discredit perceived enemies of President Donald Trump inside the government, according to documents and people involved in the operations.
The campaign included a planned sting operation against Trump’s national security adviser at the time, H.R. McMaster, and secret surveillance operations against FBI employees, aimed at exposing anti-Trump sentiment in the bureau’s ranks.
The operations against the FBI, run by the conservative group Project Veritas, were conducted from a large home in the Georgetown section of Washington that rented for $10,000 per month. Female undercover operatives arranged Match.com dates with the FBI employees with the aim of secretly recording them making disparaging comments about Trump.
The campaign shows the obsession that some of Trump’s allies had about a shadowy “deep state” trying to blunt his agenda — and the lengths that some were willing to go to try to purge the government of those believed to be disloyal to the president.
Central to the effort, according to interviews, was Richard Seddon, a former undercover British spy who was recruited in 2016 by security contractor Erik Prince to train Project Veritas operatives to infiltrate trade unions, Democratic congressional campaigns and other targets. He ran field operations for Project Veritas until mid-2018.
Last year, The New York Times reported that Seddon ran an expansive effort to gain access to the unions and campaigns and led a hiring effort that nearly tripled the number of the group’s operatives, according to interviews and deposition testimony. He trained operatives at the Prince family ranch in Wyoming.
The efforts to target American officials show how a campaign once focused on exposing outside organizations slowly morphed into an operation to ferret out Trump’s perceived enemies in the government’s ranks.
Whether any of Trump’s White House advisers had direct knowledge of the campaign is unclear, but one of the participants in the operation against McMaster, Barbara Ledeen, said she was brought on by someone “with access to McMaster’s calendar.”
At the time, Ledeen was a staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
This account is drawn from more than a dozen interviews with former Project Veritas employees and others familiar with the campaign, along with current and former government officials and internal Project Veritas documents.
The scheme against McMaster, revealed in interviews and documents, was one of the most brazen operations of the campaign. It involved a plan to hire a woman armed with a hidden camera to capture McMaster making inappropriate remarks that his opponents could use as leverage to get him ousted as national security adviser.
Although several Project Veritas operatives were involved in the plot, it is unclear whether the group directed it. The group, which is a nonprofit, has a history of conducting sting operations on news organizations, Democratic politicians and advocacy groups.
The operation was ultimately abandoned in March 2018 when the conspirators ended up getting what they wanted, albeit by different means. The embattled McMaster resigned on March 22, a move that avoided a firing by the president who had soured on the three-star general.
Project Veritas did not respond to specific questions about the operations. On Thursday, James O’Keefe, the head of the group, said this article was “a smear piece.”
Neither Seddon nor Prince responded to requests for comment. McMaster declined to comment.
When confronted with details about her involvement in the McMaster operation, Ledeen insisted that she was merely a messenger. “I am not part of a plot,” she said.
Scheme Against McMaster
The operation against McMaster was hatched not long after an article appeared in BuzzFeed News about a private dinner in 2017. Exactly what happened during the dinner is in dispute, but the article said that McMaster had disparaged Trump by calling him an “idiot” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner.”
That dinner, at an upscale restaurant in downtown Washington, was attended by McMaster and Safra Catz, the chief executive of Oracle, as well as two of their aides. Not long after, Catz called Donald McGahn, then the White House counsel, to complain about McMaster’s behavior, according to two people familiar with the call.
White House officials investigated and could not substantiate her claims, people familiar with their inquiry said. Catz declined to comment, and there is no evidence that she played any role in the plot against McMaster.
Soon after the BuzzFeed article, however, the scheme developed to try to entrap McMaster: Recruit a Match.com woman to stake out the same restaurant, Tosca, with a hidden camera. According to the plan, whenever McMaster returned by himself, the woman would strike up a conversation with him and, over drinks, try to get him to make comments that could be used to either force him to resign or get him fired.
Who initially ordered the operation is unclear. In an interview, Ledeen said “someone she trusted” contacted her to help with the plan. She said she could not remember who.
“Somebody who had his calendar conveyed to me that he goes to Tosca all the time,” she said of McMaster.
According to Ledeen, she passed the message to a man she believed to be a Project Veritas operative during a meeting at the University Club in Washington. Ledeen said she believed the man provided her with a fake name.
By then, McMaster already had a raft of enemies among Trump loyalists, who viewed him as a “globalist” creature of the so-called deep state who was committed to policies they vehemently opposed, like remaining committed to a nuclear deal with Iran and keeping American troops in Afghanistan.
The president often stoked the fire, railing against national security officials at the CIA, FBI, State Department and elsewhere who he was convinced were trying to undermine him. These “unelected deep-state operatives who defy the voters to push their own secret agendas,” he said in 2018, “are truly a threat to democracy itself.”
Seddon recruited Tarah Price, who at one point was a Project Veritas operative, and offered to pay her thousands of dollars to participate in the operation, according to interviews and an email written by a former boyfriend of Price and sent to Project Veritas Exposed, a group that tries to identify the group’s undercover operatives.
The May 2018 email, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, said that Price was “going to get paid $10,000 to go undercover and set up some big-name political figure in Washington.” It was unclear who was funding the operation. Price’s former boyfriend was apparently unaware of the target of the operation, or that McMaster had been forced to step down in March.
Two people identified the political figure as McMaster. Price did not respond to requests for comment.
Ledeen was a longtime staff member for the Judiciary Committee who had been part of past operations in support of Trump. In 2016, she was involved in a secret effort with Michael Flynn — who went on to become Trump’s first national security adviser — to hunt down thousands of emails that had been deleted from Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Barbara Ledeen is married to Michael Ledeen, who wrote the 2016 book “The Field of Fight” with Flynn. She said she retired from the Senate earlier this year.
After Flynn resigned under pressure as national security adviser, Trump gave the job to McMaster — inciting the ire of loyalists to Flynn.
Ledeen posted numerous negative articles about McMaster on her Facebook page. After The Times published its article about Prince’s work with Project Veritas, she wrote on Facebook, “We owe a lot to Erik Prince.”
A Former Spy’s Role
Seddon first came to know Prince in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when he was stationed at the British Embassy in Washington and Prince’s company, Blackwater, was winning large American government contracts for work in Afghanistan and Iraq. Former colleagues of Seddon said he nurtured a love of the American West, and of the country’s gun culture.
He is married to a longtime State Department officer, Alice Seddon, who retired last year.
After Seddon joined Project Veritas, he set out to professionalize what was once a small operation with a limited budget. He hired former soldiers, a former FBI agent and a British former commando.
Documents obtained by The Times show the extent that Seddon built espionage tactics into training for the group’s operatives — teaching them to use deception to secure information from potential targets.
The early training for the operations took place at the Prince family ranch near Cody, Wyoming, and Seddon and his colleagues conducted hiring interviews inside an airport hangar at the Cody airport known locally as the Prince hangar, according to interviews and documents. Prince is the brother of Betsy DeVos, who served as Trump’s education secretary.
During the interview process, candidates fielded questions meant to figure out their political leanings, including which famous people they might invite to a dinner party and which publications they get their news from.
After finishing the exercises, the operatives were told to burn the training materials, according to a former Project Veritas employee.
Project Veritas also experienced a windfall during the Trump administration, with millions in donations from private donors and conservative foundations. In 2019, the group received a $1 million contribution made through the law firm Alston & Bird, according to a financial document obtained by The Times. The firm has declined to say on whose behalf the contribution was made.
That same year, Project Veritas also received more than $4 million through DonorsTrust, a nonprofit used by conservative groups and individuals.
Targeting FBI Employees
Around the time McMaster resigned, Seddon pushed for Project Veritas to establish a base of operations in Washington and found a six-bedroom estate near the Georgetown University campus, according to former Project Veritas employees. The house had a view of the Potomac River and was steps from the dark, narrow staircase made famous by the film “The Exorcist.”
The group used a shell company to rent it, according to Project Veritas documents and interviews.
The plan was simple: Use undercover operatives to entrap FBI employees and other government officials who could be publicly exposed as opposing Trump.
The group has previously assigned Match.com female operatives to secretly record and discredit male targets — sometimes making first contact with them on dating apps. In 2017, a Project Veritas operative also approached a Washington Post reporter with a false claim that a Senate candidate had impregnated her.
During the Trump administration, the FBI became an attractive target for the president’s allies. In late 2017, news reports revealed that a senior FBI counterintelligence agent and a lawyer at the bureau who were working on the Russia investigation had exchanged text messages disparaging Trump.
The president’s supporters and allies in Congress said the texts were proof of bias at the FBI and that the sprawling Russia inquiry was just a plot by the “deep state” to derail the Trump presidency.
Project Veritas operatives created fake profiles on Match.com dating apps to lure the FBI employees, according to two former Project Veritas employees and a screenshot of one of the accounts. They arranged to meet and arrived with a hidden camera and microphone.
Women living at the house had Project Veritas code names, including “Brazil” and “Tiger,” according to three former Project Veritas employees with knowledge of the operations. People living at the house were told not to receive mail using their real names. If they took an Uber home, the driver had to stop before they reached the house to ensure nobody saw where they actually lived, one of the former Project Veritas employees said.
One woman living at the house, Anna Khait, was part of several operations against various targets, including a State Department employee. Project Veritas released a video of the operation in 2018, saying it was the first installment in “an undercover video investigation series unmasking the deep state.”
In the video, O’Keefe said Project Veritas had been investigating the deep state for more than a year. He did not mention efforts to target the FBI.
O’Keefe has long defended his group’s methods. In his 2018 book, “American Pravda,” O’Keefe wrote that a “key distinction between the Project Veritas journalist and establishment reporters” is that “while we use deception to gain access, we never deceive our audience.”
The Match.com spy scam was created by the Obama White House and used massively in the post 2008 time period but Erik Prince copied the process for the Trumps.
The Nightmare That Is The Match.Com Sick Dating Site Churn Mill
By The Stanford Center For Journalism Research Group
Nobody should ever use Match.com unless they want all of their texts and emails read by the Bumble college-age gossip-monger staff. If you want everything you do on Match.com sent to political party bosses to try to manipulate your vote, Google data harvesters and leaked via hackers then you will love Match.com. If you think staffers who barely started having periods have enough intellect and emotional maturity to control your dating life, then you must certainly use Match.com. Match.com will suck your credit card, Paypal account and bank account dry but your genitals will stay just as dry because most of the profiles on Match.com are fake. Match.com face pictures are often generated with the NVIDIA GANS fake face software that creates idyllic faces of people that do not exist. Match.com management is in it for cash-at-any-cost and you are just a cow in their digital abattoir. You are meat for them to process through their emotional connection fakery machine. Match.com exists to separate you from your money with a promise of connection that can’t possibly happen over a computing machine.
Be sure and share these notes with your friends. It could save their emotional life!
Match.com’s founder fakes up controversy to create web coverage of herself. Her past employers at her other dating company call her a “scammer” and a “mercenary” harvester of user dating data.
The actual original founders of one huge dating site went online to reveal that all corporate online dating sites, are miserable failures and scams. That revelation has been proven in court!
Most people that sign up for online dating with Match.com cancel it within a few weeks because of the technology disconnect, the fake profiles, the spying, the face harvesting and the huge abuse of human emotional experience that they find on Match.com.
You think Match.com is “free”? You could not be more wrong. You pay the price with your soul, your privacy, your ideology and your human rights! The current owners of the Match.com servers are the most sinister bastards in corporate data harvesting.
Match.com acquires massive numbers of fake profiles from nefarious sources and posts them in order to buffer up it’s lack of real, credible, humans on the site.
Match.com exists ENTIRELY to make money at the expense of your emotions. It is operated by computers, naive college interns and greed-driven zealots who care ENTIRELY ZERO about you! Match.com is a bigger sucker-play than The Lottery or back alley crap shoots.
Match.com computers and bored staffers read all of your emails and text messages on Match.com. For example: If you say you “…like Trump” you are flagged. If you say you “…like Obama”, you get extra cute matches. Your politics should not determine if you get laid or not! Nobody should be reading your communications, created when you are putting your heart on the line!
Russian and Chinese state spy agencies scan every photo on Match.com every few minutes and use those photos to hunt down your Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube and other sites. They have computers build a dossier on you, starting with your Match.com photos, so you can be black-mailed or influenced in the future. You can even back-track photos of users through Yandex and hunt them down to their home address via Match.com…ugh!
Match.com has an army of shills who are live people that pretend to be looking-for-love on Match.com. In actuality, these fakes get fake to string you along to get you to keep renewing your subscription.
YOU should demand that Congress, the FTC, The FCC and other agencies investigate and prosecute Match.com now!
Be informed about the hell of Match.com’s online dating by reading this huge compendium of actual user experiences. Every online dater from Match.com seems to be looking for: quid pro quo marriage, sex, free food, money, social revenge, distraction, entertainment, narcissistic validation, arm-candy, friends, a baby-daddies or related goals. See how others reach these targets, for good or evil, by reading these notes from Match.com users around the nation:
— “FireEye, one of the largest cybersecurity companies in the world has been hacked, likely by a government or a big hacking club, and the ultimate arsenal of all of the CIA-class hacking tools it uses for corporations , such as Match.com, has been stolen. This means that any time you touch Match.com, you could be opening your computer or phone to releasing every contact, photo or ANYTHING on your computer or phone to every weirdo on Earth. This means that literally anybody can remotely turn on your microphone or camera and watch/listen to you have sex, take a shower or discuss your biggest secrets… this is widely disclosed in the main-stream news. If you don’t already know this fact, you may be too dumb to be online dating…”
— “There are over 100 companies around the globe that scan every single dating and social media site, especially Match.com, every few minutes, for new profiles and harvest the posted photos. Your photos are instantly compared, via AI software and massive computer arrays, with every social media site (ie: Facebook, Linkedin, Google, Instagram, etc.) to reveal who you actually are and produce a digital dossier on you (that will be available on you forever). If you are in a lawsuit, or politics, that data will be used to harm and defame you. If you have assets, that data will be used to hack your bank accounts and medical records and blackmail you. By now, any educated person should already know this, as it is widely covered in the news. Anyone who pooh-poohs this is most likely a hacker using a fake dating or Linkedin profile. There are millions of fake dating and Facebook profiles operated by Russian and Chinese spies and data harvesters.”
– “Many fakers on Match.com use exaggerated fake gestures and facial expressions. These online facial tricks are used by internet dating ‘influencers’ to catch the public eye but they are totally fake and contrived. Dating “Influencer” culture skewered in Gia Coppola film at Venice …
– “In order to get more money (ie: “clicks”) Dixie D’Amelio, and every other kid web narcissist, posts pictures and video clips of themselves engaing in 1950’s Madison Avenue-type facial extremes and gestures. In “Exaggerating Facial Expressions: A Way to Intensify Emotion or a Way to the Uncanny Valley?” Meeri Mäkäräinen, Jari Kätsyri & Tapio Takala ( via Cognitive Computation volume 6, pages708–721(2014) show how media deployment of fake expressions can ruin society, kids in particular. They said “…Exaggeration of facial expressions is used in animation and robotics to intensify emotions. However, modifying a human-like face can lead to an unsettling outcome. This phenomenon is known as uncanny valley. The goal of this study was to identify the realism level and magnitude of facial expression that produce the maximum amount of emotional intensity and the minimum amount of perceived strangeness. We studied the perceived intensity of emotion and perceived strangeness of faces with varying levels of realism (from schematic to photorealistic) and magnitude of facial expressions (from neutral to extremely exaggerated). We found that less realistic faces required more exaggeration to reach the emotional intensity of a real human face. While there is a range of emotional intensity that can be expressed by real human faces (from neutral to full intensity), we found that the same range of emotional intensity could be expressed by artificial faces when exaggeration was used. However, attempts to express emotional intensities outside this range using exaggeration led to strange-looking faces at all levels of realism.” Their study began to open the doors of “fake facing” which is creating divisiveness in society by created popular kids and distance unpopular kids without the desire or facial muscles to copy them.
A kid “Influencer” named Cadena is now dead too. His passing is the latest in a string of young social media star deaths, following 19-year-old Landon Clifford, star of YouTube’s “Cam & Fam,” who hanged himself in August after struggling with depression and drug addiction for years. Mommy vlogger Nicole Thea, 24, who was pregnant, died of a “massive heart attack” in July. Siya Kakkar, 16, a viral sensation with more than 2 million followers on TikTok, died by suicide in June.
So while cute little Dixie, and her peers, may not be Satan’s children, they are creating great harm in the world. Here is how:
In their study; “Felt, false, and miserable smiles” Paul Ekman & Wallace V. Friesen (Journal of Nonverbal Behavior volume 6, pages238–252(1982)” describe how theoretically based distinctions linked to measurable differences in appearance are described for three smiles: felt smiles (spontaneous expressions of positive emotion); false smiles (deliberate attempts to appear as if positive emotion is felt when it isn’t); and, miserable smiles (acknowledgments of feeling miserable but not intending to do much about it). Preliminary evidence supports some of the hypotheses about how these three kinds of smile differ.
The internet “influencers” all maintain deliberate attempts to appear as if positive emotion is felt when it isn’t. They must all appear happy and excited, all the time, in order to create clicks and draw other kids into their false reality. This is why so many of them end up committing suicide.
Does Dixie know that is driving herself and other kids to suicide? No, she is just a little girl. Do her parents and marketing managers know? They Should!
Instabrats are cute and adorable and live, apparently, perfect lives. Behind-the-scenes the Kardashians, The Paris Hilton’s, The Stevie Ryan’s are almost all insane, damaged, co-dependent fakers who are enabled by uncaring, greedy parents and marketing companies. They are selling you absolute bull-shit fairyland facades disguised as their normal lives.
Google and Youtube’s Larry Page, Sergy Brin, Eric Schmidt, Anne E. Wojcicki, Yasmin Green and the rest are hateful sick people who know how much their media damages kids but they do it anyway because private jets and sex parties are EXPENSIVE! They encourage this behavior for profit.
In college you watched the popular kids always clustered around each other Fake-Facing their conversations with nearly manic, over-interested, wide-eyed facial expressions and gesticulations as if they other person’s comment about Cindy’s new eyebrow pencil were as big a deal as the arrival of an army of magic unicorns. Nothing they said to each other was as interesting as they expressed with their faces. They had learned that “being popular” means that you have to look like you are having more fun than normal people and that your life is more exciting than that of others.
By minimizing the lives of others you lift yourself up in your eyes. You also drive every other kid crazy.
There are millions of expose’s about internet “Stars” who were later outed as fakes. Their expensive sports cars and piles of money were rented for the photo shoot. Their smiles, exaggerated facial expressions and web lives are FAKE, FAKE, FAKE!
Black Lives Matter riots have a large basis in poor little Dixie D’Ameli. Inner city people will never have a big cool life like Dixie, the internet tells them. The influencers are so happy and rich and have none of their problems…
So kids see all this facade and kill themselves. Inner City people see all this facade and burn down cities. Influencer’s tell kids and the disadvantaged: “Here is all this stuff you will never have”. The notorious Fyre Festival was an amazing example of all these fakers suckering all of these suckers to a facade that clearly exposed itself for what these people are!
It is Anne E. Wojcicki’s fault. It is the fault of Match.com, YouTube and Google pushing their woke, data-harvested crap on society.
More User Comments About Match.Com, OK Cupid And Their Dating Factory Cartel
This is the “advice” that Match.com markets to users and that Match.com users post on the web. Do you agree with these concepts of social control?:
“Be very careful on Match.com dating sites. I have read the newspaper articles and am being cautious. I have encountered a veritable army of Nigerian scammers, privacy data thieves, Russian spammers and spies on the dating site. On top of that there are tens of thousands of newspaper articles warning about this. Additionally, nothing that you engage in with a stranger you are considering for possible intimacy will be valid over a computer, phone or text device. It isn’t being paranoid if it is based on actual experience and vast documentation by the rest of America. 60 MINUTES just did a feature segment on how data thieves can get all your stuff with just your full name and a picture they can run through image-comparison software. They do it all day long.”
“ You just joined Match.com’s dating sites. You message some attractive ladies right near you. You get some responses. Alas, you don’t realize that those “hot ladies”, now messaging with you, are actually all a guy with a goatee, named Wu Lee, in the Philippines. While you see lots of talk about these dating services, “not allowing fake profiles”, they are, in fact, the ones who hire the “shill Farms” to supply them with the fake date experiences. They only use them for guys because women always get flooded with actual guys contacting them. Many of the pictures are from the ex-websites of dead Russian hookers. The first red flags:
– Your date is out “of the area for a few weeks”, or longer, on a trip or some big project so that a real person doesn’t actually have to show up.
– They have some other excuse to not meet you for a few weeks. The psychology is that no guy will wait that long and move on to the next candidate. Alas, the next candidate , and the next, and the next, is, more often than not, that same guy Wu Lee. If you are savvy enough to track them in your calender and follow-up a few days after they are supposed to “return to town”, they will tell you that they just happened to have met someone on their trip.
– They won’t talk on the phone. While talking to a person on a dating site is very comforting, the Shill Farms have escalation Teams that route phone call requests to sex phone operators, with your local accent, who do double duty as fake phone dates and fake sex call takers. Even if you talk on the phone, it still is not guaranteed that you don’t have a shill.
– The shill starts asking you very specific detailed personal data about yourself. In real world dating, nobody asks that kind of stuff before their first date. You look at each other, decide if you both look OK and off you go to the movies or dinner that Saturday. The reason the shills want detailed data on you is that the Shill Farm bosses make money from both providing fake profiles AND harvesting your private data for data harvesting banks.
– They try to keep you on the site for as long as possible. The Shill Farmer has a third way of making money off of you. It is called “Spoofing”. The more volumes of people the dating site can show for their subscriptions and advertisers, the more money they can make.
– They won’t meet. For most people, the purpose of a dating site is to meet someone you can hug, squeeze, kiss and go do things with. It should seem odd to you, if your potential date won’t meet in person ASAP. If they were real, you would think they would want to see how both of you are, in-person, before wasting time. Here are some key terms and types to watch out for: “Shill”- A person pretending to be someone else, or another gender, in order to suck you in to some scheme to get your money or your data; Shill Farm – A large building, apartment complex, warehouse or other building where large numbers of shills are base; “Shill Farmer” – The owner of the Shill Farm. Often Russian mobsters, Asian gangs or Nigerian cartels; “Dating Harvester” – Match.com, Plenty of Fish, OK Cupid and similar automated conglomerate-owned dating services that are in the business for far different reasons than you might think; “Trolling” – Working the pretext to try to get the victim/target guy sucked into the scheme. Using different scenarios and talking scripts to get the target to loosen their guard; “Cat Fishing” – Men pretending to be women; “Spoofing” – creating fake user volume numbers in order to help dating sites trick advertisers into paying more…”
“Nothing you do in email, text or phone will count, once you meet in-person. It will all go out the window (ie: as sad as it sounds, pre-communication is a waste-of-time in online dating, because people decide on attraction in the first few minutes of the live meeting). “
“On Match.com and OK Cupid, All of the men are looking for sex and all of the women are looking for free dinners”
“I remember when I first started using online dating apps around 2012/2013, before these companies decided to go completely full exploitation and profiteering mode on us. It was a completely different world. I always had like 10 different matches to have ongoing conversations with, and could score a date or two every week, very easily. Now it’s more difficult. Long story short, men need to boycott these online dating apps/companies. The bullshit that they’re doing is unacceptable. Their acceptance of bots, spam, scammers, exploitation of men, and expecting us to pay for the nonsense is disgusting. You don’t even want to leave notifications on because they no longer pertain to when you get a message. I was considering a lifetime purchase for Bumble, but learned that it’s the easiest way to get a shadowban. Absolutely inexcusable, unethical business practices like this need to be brought to light and highlighted for all to see. Oh, and this is also bad for women in the long run. These apps do nothing for women who actually do want relationships. These apps are designed to sexualize women to keep them coming back. We must all boycott these unethical businesses.”
“Do not send more than a few emails or talk on the phone more than 45 minutes without meeting in person. The human mind will always create a bigger-than-life image of who you think you are talking to and it will be impossible for the other person to live up to that. You will set yourself up for disappointment and your experience here will always be unproductive. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to be disappointed because the vision and the real-world don’t match.”
“The grass is greener mentality, it’s always in the background for a while it seems. It affects grounded and emotionally mature people at some point on their OLD journey, as the options can be overwhelming.
A lot of people are fresh out of relationships, and didn’t realise how attractive they are, or how they became over the course of a stale relationship.
As they date, it starts to dawn on them. So they want better and better, regardless of how you matched up vs the rest. So they start to stall, when the novelty of someone new, equally or even just fractionally more attractive shows interest…It becomes an ongoing search for someone marginally “better” until the novelty wears off…
Then months later. “Hi. Sorry I wasn’t in the right head space back then…. So how are you? Xx”, from a deleted number.”
“Online dating has been a revolving door of temporary people for me. The longest I was able to date someone was a whopping 4 dates before she called it quits (1.5 months). I HEAVILY get the impression that people have very unrealistic expectations when it comes to dating. It’s like they want an orgasmic spark on the first date, followed by consistent magic shows for the following dates. It’s really hard to get to know someone from a dating app. I do think if you’re a super hott guy, you can have fun getting a lot of hookups though, but if you’re searching for a romantic relationship as an ‘average dude,’ it’s truly a struggle puddle. I tend to get cycled out pretty quickly even if we got along well.”
“…a change that jumps out at me is that a substantial percentage of the women posting photos sticking their tongues out. No one looks smarter, funnier, sexier (or anything else one would be looking for in a mate) with their tongues hanging out the side of their mouths. What cultural shift happened that made some women think this is in some way attractive (and I know attractiveness is incredibly subjective, true, but going from “this looks really stupid” to “this will get me more dates” in the span of a decade is a long way to travel, culturally). It just makes me think, “This woman is either too young for me, or she is mentally ill”. Either way, it’s disqualifying.”
“my experience when meeting women on-line:
– they are still attached/trauma bonded to their ex..
– “I don’t know what i want but will know when i see it”
– hidden mental health issues
– hidden addiction issues
– suppressed rage..
– misrepresenting themselves ( catfishing but video chats help )
– getting very attached too quickly…
– not being authentic..”
“The Match.com Internet dating process can be heartbreaking.. You will meet tons of beautiful, sexy, sharp people that you would, at first blush, be able to visualize yourself being boy/girl-friended with, or married to. This can be very painful, though, if you have had great email and phone calls and both decided you really like each other. But the ones you like may tell you, right on the spot, that they are not attracted to you and the ones that want you strongly, you may not be attracted to. Prepare yourself and try to have no expectations, but don’t deny that “chemistry” makes up to 25% of the first encounter and if there is no chemistry, it usually seems to fritter away rapidly”
“Most of the internet people will select one of the first few people they meet because they get overloaded after more people contact them. Most people, women more than men, get 30 to 200 responses and just get burned out after the first dozen meetings. The first people one meets tend to stick out in that persons mind more because the others start blending together in the density of increasing contacts, emails, phones calls and meetings. If you don’t meet soon you will often be buried in the confusion that follows as the increasing volume of email contacts builds up. Most of relationships on match turn out to be with one of the first few people one meets according to the survey. If people are trying to meet quickly, they are probably trying to get in to your “emotional window” before it closes.”
” Many of the people on Match.com are just dabblers, or looky-loo’s who never intend to meet anybody in person, some of them are even marketing people for the dating service acting as “shills”. Ask them to meet soon to see if they are sincere.”
“Match.com People who object to long initial letters or emails are really not interested in knowing anything about the people they are contacting. They are often just looking for flings and distractions. If the people can’t deal with alot of information about you then they may not be interested in a long term relationship(LTR) and could just be using the dating system for personal validation and not for creating a relationship”
“Women tend to get 10 responses for every one response men get on Match because so many female profiles are fake.”
“Most people go in with the best of intentions…thinking that a great mind/intellect connection will make-up for any lacks in “chemistry”..but it has never turned out to be like that…everybody seems to, ultimately, let chemistry rule. Looks are not the whole driver but they are always a non-insignificant criteria.”
“Bad breath can totally kill a date. How many losers have I been out with that would have been OK except their breath made me ill. Take 4-5 “Breath Assure” tablets at least 30 minutes before the date and eat an Altoid or some mint a few minutes before the date. Eat a little something before the date because an empty stomach can cause bad breath. Brush your teeth. See your dentist and have your teeth professionally cleaned.”
“IF you are cute and you try to get off of the internet service they may not take you off very quickly because you are attracting eyeballs or customers for them, you can get many free months from the service if you work it right.”
“Don’t do internet dating unless you are prepared to meet people and you have from 6-10PM Free every night, 30-90 minutes a day to read and respond to emails and at least half your weekend free to meet a few people. I will not work for most people unless they make a commitment to the process, feel that getting a special person is the most important priority in their lives (Over work, money, material things, etc.)and really treat the effort like a job. Most people are completely surprised by how much work is involved in this kind of dating. Many people select one of the first few people they meet just to avoid the time-drain. But, when you meet the person that you want to be with, it makes it all worth it ten times over.”
“When you first notice something you don’t like about the person, don’t run away or write them off, you must remember that you are operating in a hyper-accelerated dating environment (Where else would you meet 20 guys in 60 days?), in the “normal world” you would be looking for all these checklist items or first a validating red-flag to write them off as a stalker/creep like you do here. The density of people can be daunting but don’t let it make you too clinical in your approach.”
“Most dating systems forward from an anonymous email to your personal email. Be sure and set your email system up so your emails pop up on your work desktop or on your home system to avoid coming home at night and finding a plethora of responses and replies that you don’t have time to give proper attention to. That is unfair to you and to the people that are interested.”
“I now want to meet as soon as possible because the “rejection intensity” seems to be less painful for both people if you have not gotten emotionally involved with lots of phone calls and emails beforehand. So it is important to meet as soon as possible to reduce the pain factor of the potential turndown. Of course, if both of you happen to be attracted, then you are done and you get a boyfriend or girlfriend.”
“Don’t ask a person if they like you on the date. It puts them on the spot and is too harsh to hear live and in person if they do not.”
“The marketing people at each of the bigger dating services will tell you that the demographics for the service are high-income, well educated, aggressive, driven business people. This can be both good and bad. The women tend to be more sexually aggressive and the guys tend to be busier”.
“Men lie more than women but they both lie. Men lie because they had bad upbringings, or they are insecure or they are afraid. Men only lie about one thing so it is actually a misnomer to say men lie. It is better to say “Men are Polyamory addicted”. Men don’t think they are doing anything wrong unless there has been a very loud and official wedding or girlfriend/boyfriend-stage in the relationship announcement. Men never think they are lying..they really don’t, they just think that the relationship isn’t happening. Men think that women are too slow and careful and always shopping for the right man so they always think women are not going to stick around and they always keep their options open until a women clearly commits. Women think that men move too fast so they wait for a slow one, but they rarely come. Both genders are wired different so it never really works out until one or the other lets their defenses down.”
“Don’t attack people who ask you for a picture and do have a picture ready to go. Having a digital picture ready to go is considered to be the number one “rule” of the web. Don’t go online to date unless you already have one on your hard drive or you will just be creating a terribly frustrating experience for people you contact and most of them will be upset that you don’t have a picture. The only difference in meeting people on the web or in person is that you have no visual context. Most people make their primary assessment based on appearance, even if they deny that they do, it is a natural human process to seek visual confirmation. On the same note, don’t judge a book by its cover. Many “pretty” people who seek only “pretty” people often find shallowness and vanity and no substance for that very relationship they seek…try a normal looking person, you will usually be surprised.”
“There are no weirdos and no normal people on the internet. There aren’t people at all, Just words and text. You have to realize it is a digital environment and employ it as an initiation place and then follow-up in the real-world. The unique thing about open network communication is that it has no established social order or boundaries so people are naturally supported in their theatrical creation. The difficult aspect of this is that there is nobody to reference you as you microscopically grow bigger or into other tangents of a character without even noticing it. So; people tend to be more flexible with the facts or narrative because they feel like they are co-writing a novel with some
one in real time.”
“Match.com proves that girls and guys can never be “just Friends. (Harry met Sally) if neither is physically attracted to the other. If one is and the other isn’t it will almost never work. In the case of one person being attracted but wanted to be friends, many of those people will either be in denial or embarrassed to acknowledge their attraction.”
“Realize that time doesn’t exist on the internet. What is a timely response or an appropriate development of social expectations will be too slow or too fast to the other person. Most internet socializing tends to move at “warp speed”…because it can.”
“Whether you’re searching for romance in cyberspace or at a Speed-Dating event, the rules can be complicated and downright frustrating. Following are a few that real singles have used to navigate this brave new world of dating:
– Rule No. 1: Asking a woman out for a Saturday night date is a big deal.
If you ask some women out for a Monday or even a Thursday evening, beware. You could have the phone receiver slammed in your ear. “A woman takes it very seriously when she is not asked out on a Saturday night,” said Dawn Sidney, who met her husband at a Chicago Jewish federation event. “She has a different attitude. She thinks the guy doesn’t think she’s special.”
– Rule No. 2: Fools shouldn’t rush in.
To Shawna Gooze, a human resources assistant, it doesn’t matter what day of the week a guy wants to see her. What happens after the date is more important. “I went out with a very good-looking, nice guy I met at a bar, but he started e-mailing me so much after the first date, it was a turn-off,” she said. “In the beginning, it’s better not to rush a relationship or come on too strong.”
– Rule No. 3: When you move an online romance offline, go public.
When trying to find a date in cyberspace, a set of unwritten rules applies, and some online daters simply make the rules up as they go along, according to Leslie Zimmer, who works for a Chicago-area synagogue and has tried several Jewish online dating services.
Zimmer, whose online dating odyssey has most been both frustrating and humorous, followed two main rules. First, she didn’t disclose personal information such as home address, telephone number or work location. Second, she met an online date at a public place such as a coffee shop or restaurant. She also chose to have a few “phone dates” with an online dater before meeting him in person.
Hoping to attract a Jewish John Travolta, she began her personal ad with, “Shall we dance?” One guy responded with a cute, clever message that discussed their common interest in dancing. For their first date, they agreed to meet at local nightclub to show off some fancy footwork.
“There was definitely a chemistry,” she said. “We spent three hours dancing, talking and laughing. “After we danced, he just said, ‘Good night.’ I was dumbfounded. I happen to have a lot of moxie, so I e-mailed him. He e-mailed back that he just didn’t feel any chemistry. I thought, when he finds someone with chemistry, it must be like an explosion!”
– Rule No. 4: If you’re a woman seeking cyber-romance, don’t be afraid to initiate the first cyber-contact.
The anonymity of online dating makes it easier to sever a bad connection, said Michael Slater, 25, a regional sales manager for a Chicago-based corporate relocation company. In other ways, it’s leveled the playing field by making it acceptable for a woman to initiate cyber-contact. “I know from several friends using Jdate.com that women are e-mailing guys and asking them out,” he said.
– Rule No. 5: Seek advice from a trusted friend if you’re stuck in the dating doldrums.
While it’s clear the Internet has changed the rules of dating, some things never change. Singles still seek advice and support from friends and family, said Slater, who is currently attached.
“Sometimes a friend will ask me what I think of a woman’s profile, and I’ll say, ‘You’re not going to know unless you try.’ They just need an extra boost to click that ‘send’ button,” he said.
“I don’t want to be known as a yenta [matchmaker], but I just give my friends a push in the right direction. They’ve done the same for me.”
– Rule No. 6: Unfortunately, there are no hard-and-fast formulas that guarantee romantic success, except maybe: Love like you’ve never been hurt before, and be yourself”
“1.) Never give out more than your first name over the Internet. Never tell anyone your address.
2.) It is fairly safe to exchange phone numbers although you should remember that your phone number can be used to find you. You can tell a lot about a person from their voice. If a person gives you their work telephone number instead of their home telephone number, they are probably already involved.
3.) If you have found someone you would like to meet, always arrange to meet in a public place such as a bookstore or coffee shop.
4.) Unless, someone looks frightening, always acknowledge the person you came to meet and have coffee or whatever. Never leave just because you don’t like a person’s appearance. It just isn’t nice to leave someone waiting and wondering!
5.) Be honest. If you are not interested thank the person for meeting you and tell them in a nice way that you don’t feel you have as much in common as you had hoped. A kind up front rejection is easier on you both.
6.) Always ask to see the persons drivers license. If they hesitate or don’t give you their identification, they have their reason’s. Get rid of them FAST! And, don’t let them follow you home!
7.) Call home or a friend and tell them the person’s name, address and license number which is on their license.
8.) A man has every right to request to see a woman’s drivers license as well. There are a few dingy women in this world.
9.) If a woman fails to ask for your ID don’t date her. Find another one because the one who didn’t ask will show bad judgement in other aspects of life as well!
10.) In sexual matters follow the dictates of the religion of your preference. You will always be glad you did.
11.) Should you decide to become physically involved, never do so until you know the person well.
12.) You do not know a person well until you have seen them in their normal environment and have met their friends. Practice safe sex!
13.) If a person seems to have no friends or associations be very suspicious. A person will rarely abuse someone known to their friends. There is a social price to pay.
14.) Always trust your instincts. If you are uneasy about someone there is probably a good reason.
15.) Remember, that all you owe anyone on the first meeting, is courtesy for a very short period of time. You have a lot to gain and very little to lose by meeting new people as long as you use common sense!”
HOW MATCH.COM AND OKCUPID REALLY WORK
I friggin HATE match.com! So I go on there, I don’t know why, because I’m obsessive, because I wonder when the last time Karaoke Boy logged in.
Match.com sucks ass. They’re automatic renewal policy proves they don’t believe in their own service. THANK YOU for calling them out! Reply. Devon says:
Match.com sucks because they can’t figure out my accounts and now I have 4 different logins and can’t reply because I only have 1 paid subscription but they can …
Match Sucks – match.com. Review Details Overall Average • 2.9 / 5 (by 116 Users) for match.com Description Rating & Reviews by other singles for the online dating …
Home > Blog > Online Dating > What Percent of People Respond to Your Initial Emails on Match.com? … If you’ve ever received an email like this, you know it sucks.
Why Match.com sucks….. 20Jan08. Ok…… so I was insane enough to sign up for match.com a few weeks ago, just to see. I mean, come on….
Why Online Dating Sucks (for Men) ExpeditionSailor20. Loading … Match.com reviews – an honest review! – Duration: 8:45. Jason Lee 110,355 views. 8:45.
reddit: the front page of the internet. jump to … Match sucks and Okcupid sucks because for some reason it seems like 75% of the women are “just looking to make new …
Match is a legitimate dating site to be sure, but it engages in extremely dishonest and unethical practices in order to get people to shell out money. Helpful?
Online dating is great for women and it sucks for guys. It seems to be a perfect fit for our consumerist society, where only the best-looking or most valuable …
Why Online Dating Sucks for Men. Many men are ignored on dating sites. By Emily Heist Moss / Role Reboot. March 7, 2013, 4:46 PM GMT Print. Comments. The …
Meet the men of Match.com: Really, guys, are you serious? by Lisa Barnard. … If your profile sucks, no matter if you’re 20 30 or 90, …
Guys: Your Match.com Profile Sucks. Here’s Why. _____ Isn’t Natural and It Will Kill You; Recipe: Roast Beets with Garlic Kale;
Match.com – My experience as a guy (women, love, attracted) User Name: Remember Me: Password … Match.com sucks. I’ve been on that site before, …
Match.com Sucks! Andrey Medina. Loading … match.com is a scam !!!!! fake profiles made by match.com and other date sites. – Duration: 3:40.
Match.com does auto-charge people without notice AND then if you contest the charge, and lose, they will freeze your account for the duration of your membership.
Match.com is a service that millions use, but few actually succeed at using. Lame! I talk about this first part in the series about keeping things simple
Match.com sucks, I have never met more people that lied, that were desperate, and that would do anything to get married.
Why Match.com Sucks It Hard. October 8, 2009 sarahntastic Leave a comment Go to comments. I have a match.com profile but I do nothing with it.
Match sucks… and not in a good way. … Match blows: Hey, Match Girls! Piss Off, You Had Your Chance […] Like Like. Reply. acanoles says: January 22, 2014 at 8:38 PM.
Home > Blog > Online Dating > What Percent of People Respond to Your Initial Emails on Match.com? … If you’ve ever received an email like this, you know it sucks.
Why Online Dating Sucks 80% Of The … It attempts to match people who are not otherwise attracted to … So, online dating sucks 80 percent of the time. Most Read;
Why Online Dating Sucks. It’s a generally accepted fact that about 20-25% of all relationships now start online. Not all of them last longer than a month, but lots of …
Nice Try, Match.com, but Online Dating Still Sucks for Bisexuals. I know a hell of a lot of people who maintain separate profiles based on the gender they’re hitting on.
Online Dating Sucks For Men Because Of Women Like Me. By Emily Heist Moss. February 22, …
What I Learned From Lurking Online Dating Sites: Men Are Bitter, … I made an account on Match.com, … If we have to “suck it up,” so should you.
And I’d like to think the women on match.com aren’t that shallow anyways. … I know this is harder than it sounds, most guys suck at this big time, …
5 Reasons Online Dating Is a Crapshoot Haven’t found ‘The One’ online? … And that could help make you happier with your match. Related Content: [[video:32701]]
11/13/2013 10:10:07 PM: Online dating sucks for men : pk0357 Eastlake, OH 41, joined Jan. 2010: I found this in another thread today. Thought it might do some good here.
When my match.com membership was active matches would arrive by e-mail. … Plentyoffish Sucks! Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Post to.
Why Online Dating Sucks for Men. Many men are ignored on dating sites. Return to article Sign Up! Get AlterNet’s Daily Newsletter in Your Inbox + select …
Check out reviews of match.com made by real members! Home; Dating guide. Dating Blog; Dating advice. Dating advice for men; Dating advice for women; First date advice;
While I was on Match.com, I only received about 4 emails from guys PERIOD, and that was over a 3-4 month span. … Beware: eHarmony sucks… Posted: 12/1/2006 4:41:13 AM:
Until humans reach the age of 25, their brains are incapable of complete reasoning. The front of the brain has not fully formed yet. That is why insurance companies do everything they can to keep kids out of cars. That is why teens will suddenly have sex without thinking about the consequences. Part of this is the human species trying to get the species to make babies as fast as possible in order to continue humankind. Notice, in later years, the whole sex drive/must-have-a-baby thing goes away. Here is a great artucle about the science of this:
Moody. Impulsive. Maddening. Why do teenagers act the way they do? Viewed through the eyes of evolution, their most exasperating traits may be the key to success as adults.
By David Dobbs
Although you know your teenager takes some chances, it can be a shock to hear about them.
One fine May morning not long ago my oldest son, 17 at the time, phoned to tell me that he had just spent a couple hours at the state police barracks. Apparently he had been driving “a little fast.” What, I asked, was “a little fast”? Turns out this product of my genes and loving care, the boy-man I had swaddled, coddled, cooed at, and then pushed and pulled to the brink of manhood, had been flying down the highway at 113 miles an hour.
“That’s more than a little fast,” I said.
He agreed. In fact, he sounded somber and contrite. He did not object when I told him he’d have to pay the fines and probably for a lawyer. He did not argue when I pointed out that if anything happens at that speeda dog in the road, a blown tire, a sneezehe dies. He was in fact almost irritatingly reasonable. He even proffered that the cop did the right thing in stopping him, for, as he put it, “We can’t all go around doing 113.”
He did, however, object to one thing. He didn’t like it that one of the several citations he received was for reckless driving.
“Well,” I huffed, sensing an opportunity to finally yell at him, “what would you call it?”
“It’s just not accurate,” he said calmly. “?’Reckless’ sounds like you’re not paying attention. But I was. I made a deliberate point of doing this on an empty stretch of dry interstate, in broad daylight, with good sight lines and no traffic. I mean, I wasn’t just gunning the thing. I was driving.
“I guess that’s what I want you to know. If it makes you feel any better, I was really focused.”
Actually, it did make me feel better. That bothered me, for I didn’t understand why. Now I do.
My son’s high-speed adventure raised the question long asked by people who have pondered the class of humans we call teenagers: What on Earth was he doing? Parents often phrase this question more colorfully. Scientists put it more coolly. They ask, What can explain this behavior? But even that is just another way of wondering, What is wrong with these kids? Why do they act this way? The question passes judgment even as it inquires.
Through the ages, most answers have cited dark forces that uniquely affect the teen. Aristotle concluded more than 2,300 years ago that “the young are heated by Nature as drunken men by wine.” A shepherd in William Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale wishes “there were no age between ten and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting.” His lament colors most modern scientific inquiries as well. G. Stanley Hall, who formalized adolescent studies with his 1904 Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, believed this period of “storm and stress” replicated earlier, less civilized stages of human development. Freud saw adolescence as an expression of torturous psychosexual conflict; Erik Erikson, as the most tumultuous of life’s several identity crises. Adolescence: always a problem.
Such thinking carried into the late 20th century, when researchers developed brain-imaging technology that enabled them to see the teen brain in enough detail to track both its physical development and its patterns of activity. These imaging tools offered a new way to ask the same questionWhat’s wrong with these kids?and revealed an answer that surprised almost everyone. Our brains, it turned out, take much longer to develop than we had thought. This revelation suggested both a simplistic, unflattering explanation for teens’ maddening behaviorand a more complex, affirmative explanation as well.
The first full series of scans of the developing adolescent braina National Institutes of Health (NIH) project that studied over a hundred young people as they grew up during the 1990sshowed that our brains undergo a massive reorganization between our 12th and 25th years. The brain doesn’t actually grow very much during this period. It has already reached 90 percent of its full size by the time a person is six, and a thickening skull accounts for most head growth afterward. But as we move through adolescence, the brain undergoes extensive remodeling, resembling a network and wiring upgrade.
For starters, the brain’s axonsthe long nerve fibers that neurons use to send signals to other neuronsbecome gradually more insulated with a fatty substance called myelin (the brain’s white matter), eventually boosting the axons’ transmission speed up to a hundred times. Meanwhile, dendrites, the branchlike extensions that neurons use to receive signals from nearby axons, grow twiggier, and the most heavily used synapsesthe little chemical junctures across which axons and dendrites pass notesgrow richer and stronger. At the same time, synapses that see little use begin to wither. This synaptic pruning, as it is called, causes the brain’s cortexthe outer layer of gray matter where we do much of our conscious and complicated thinkingto become thinner but more efficient. Taken together, these changes make the entire brain a much faster and more sophisticated organ.
This process of maturation, once thought to be largely finished by elementary school, continues throughout adolescence. Imaging work done since the 1990s shows that these physical changes move in a slow wave from the brain’s rear to its front, from areas close to the brain stem that look after older and more behaviorally basic functions, such as vision, movement, and fundamental processing, to the evolutionarily newer and more complicated thinking areas up front. The corpus callosum, which connects the brain’s left and right hemispheres and carries traffic essential to many advanced brain functions, steadily thickens. Stronger links also develop between the hippocampus, a sort of memory directory, and frontal areas that set goals and weigh different agendas; as a result, we get better at integrating memory and experience into our decisions. At the same time, the frontal areas develop greater speed and richer connections, allowing us to generate and weigh far more variables and agendas than before.
When this development proceeds normally, we get better at balancing impulse, desire, goals, self-interest, rules, ethics, and even altruism, generating behavior that is more complex and, sometimes at least, more sensible. But at times, and especially at first, the brain does this work clumsily. It’s hard to get all those new cogs to mesh.
Beatriz Luna, a University of Pittsburgh professor of psychiatry who uses neuroimaging to study the teen brain, used a simple test that illustrates this learning curve. Luna scanned the brains of children, teens, and twentysomethings while they performed an antisaccade task, a sort of eyes-only video game where you have to stop yourself from looking at a suddenly appearing light. You view a screen on which the red crosshairs at the center occasionally disappear just as a light flickers elsewhere on the screen. Your instructions are to not look at the light and instead to look in the opposite direction. A sensor detects any eye movement. It’s a tough assignment, since flickering lights naturally draw our attention. To succeed, you must override both a normal impulse to attend to new information and curiosity about something forbidden. Brain geeks call this response inhibition.
Ten-year-olds stink at it, failing about 45 percent of the time. Teens do much better. In fact, by age 15 they can score as well as adults if they’re motivated, resisting temptation about 70 to 80 percent of the time. What Luna found most interesting, however, was not those scores. It was the brain scans she took while people took the test. Compared with adults, teens tended to make less use of brain regions that monitor performance, spot errors, plan, and stay focusedareas the adults seemed to bring online automatically. This let the adults use a variety of brain resources and better resist temptation, while the teens used those areas less often and more readily gave in to the impulse to look at the flickering lightjust as they’re more likely to look away from the road to read a text message.
If offered an extra reward, however, teens showed they could push those executive regions to work harder, improving their scores. And by age 20, their brains respond to this task much as the adults’ do. Luna suspects the improvement comes as richer networks and faster connections make the executive region more effective.
These studies help explain why teens behave with such vexing inconsistency: beguiling at breakfast, disgusting at dinner; masterful on Monday, sleepwalking on Saturday. Along with lacking experience generally, they’re still learning to use their brain’s new networks. Stress, fatigue, or challenges can cause a misfire. Abigail Baird, a Vassar psychologist who studies teens, calls this neural gawkinessan equivalent to the physical awkwardness teens sometimes display while mastering their growing bodies.
The slow and uneven developmental arc revealed by these imaging studies offers an alluringly pithy explanation for why teens may do stupid things like drive at 113 miles an hour, aggrieve their ancientry, and get people (or get gotten) with child: They act that way because their brains aren’t done! You can see it right there in the scans!
This view, as titles from the explosion of scientific papers and popular articles about the “teen brain” put it, presents adolescents as “works in progress” whose “immature brains” lead some to question whether they are in a state “akin to mental retardation.”
The story you’re reading right now, however, tells a different scientific tale about the teen brain. Over the past five years or so, even as the work-in-progress story spread into our culture, the discipline of adolescent brain studies learned to do some more-complex thinking of its own. A few researchers began to view recent brain and genetic findings in a brighter, more flattering light, one distinctly colored by evolutionary theory. The resulting account of the adolescent braincall it the adaptive-adolescent storycasts the teen less as a rough draft than as an exquisitely sensitive, highly adaptable creature wired almost perfectly for the job of moving from the safety of home into the complicated world outside.
This view will likely sit better with teens. More important, it sits better with biology’s most fundamental principle, that of natural selection. Selection is hell on dysfunctional traits. If adolescence is essentially a collection of themangst, idiocy, and haste; impulsiveness, selfishness, and reckless bumblingthen how did those traits survive selection? They couldn’tnot if they were the period’s most fundamental or consequential features.
The answer is that those troublesome traits don’t really characterize adolescence; they’re just what we notice most because they annoy us or put our children in danger. As B. J. Casey, a neuroscientist at Weill Cornell Medical College who has spent nearly a decade applying brain and genetic studies to our understanding of adolescence, puts it, “We’re so used to seeing adolescence as a problem. But the more we learn about what really makes this period unique, the more adolescence starts to seem like a highly functional, even adaptive period. It’s exactly what you’d need to do the things you have to do then.”
To see past the distracting, dopey teenager and glimpse the adaptive adolescent within, we should look not at specific, sometimes startling, behaviors, such as skateboarding down stairways or dating fast company, but at the broader traits that underlie those acts.
Let’s start with the teen’s love of the thrill. We all like new and exciting things, but we never value them more highly than we do during adolescence. Here we hit a high in what behavioral scientists call sensation seeking: the hunt for the neural buzz, the jolt of the unusual or unexpected.
Seeking sensation isn’t necessarily impulsive. You might plan a sensation-seeking experiencea skydive or a fast drivequite deliberately, as my son did. Impulsivity generally drops throughout life, starting at about age 10, but this love of the thrill peaks at around age 15. And although sensation seeking can lead to dangerous behaviors, it can also generate positive ones: The urge to meet more people, for instance, can create a wider circle of friends, which generally makes us healthier, happier, safer, and more successful.
This upside probably explains why an openness to the new, though it can sometimes kill the cat, remains a highlight of adolescent development. A love of novelty leads directly to useful experience. More broadly, the hunt for sensation provides the inspiration needed to “get you out of the house” and into new terrain, as Jay Giedd, a pioneering researcher in teen brain development at NIH, puts it.
Also peaking during adolescence (and perhaps aggrieving the ancientry the most) is risk-taking. We court risk more avidly as teens than at any other time. This shows reliably in the lab, where teens take more chances in controlled experiments involving everything from card games to simulated driving. And it shows in real life, where the period from roughly 15 to 25 brings peaks in all sorts of risky ventures and ugly outcomes. This age group dies of accidents of almost every sort (other than work accidents) at high rates. Most long-term drug or alcohol abuse starts during adolescence, and even people who later drink responsibly often drink too much as teens. Especially in cultures where teenage driving is common, this takes a gory toll: In the U.S., one in three teen deaths is from car crashes, many involving alcohol.
Are these kids just being stupid? That’s the conventional explanation: They’re not thinking, or by the work-in-progress model, their puny developing brains fail them.
Yet these explanations don’t hold up. As Laurence Steinberg, a developmental psychologist specializing in adolescence at Temple University, points out, even 14- to 17-year-oldsthe biggest risk takersuse the same basic cognitive strategies that adults do, and they usually reason their way through problems just as well as adults. Contrary to popular belief, they also fully recognize they’re mortal. And, like adults, says Steinberg, “teens actually overestimate risk.”
So if teens think as well as adults do and recognize risk just as well, why do they take more chances? Here, as elsewhere, the problem lies less in what teens lack compared with adults than in what they have more of. Teens take more risks not because they don’t understand the dangers but because they weigh risk versus reward differently: In situations where risk can get them something they want, they value the reward more heavily than adults do.
A video game Steinberg uses draws this out nicely. In the game, you try to drive across town in as little time as possible. Along the way you encounter several traffic lights. As in real life, the traffic lights sometimes turn from green to yellow as you approach them, forcing a quick go-or-stop decision. You save timeand score more pointsif you drive through before the light turns red. But if you try to drive through the red and don’t beat it, you lose even more time than you would have if you had stopped for it. Thus the game rewards you for taking a certain amount of risk but punishes you for taking too much.
When teens drive the course alone, in what Steinberg calls the emotionally “cool” situation of an empty room, they take risks at about the same rates that adults do. Add stakes that the teen cares about, however, and the situation changes. In this case Steinberg added friends: When he brought a teen’s friends into the room to watch, the teen would take twice as many risks, trying to gun it through lights he’d stopped for before. The adults, meanwhile, drove no differently with a friend watching.
To Steinberg, this shows clearly that risk-taking rises not from puny thinking but from a higher regard for reward.
“They didn’t take more chances because they suddenly downgraded the risk,” says Steinberg. “They did so because they gave more weight to the payoff.”
Researchers such as Steinberg and Casey believe this risk-friendly weighing of cost versus reward has been selected for because, over the course of human evolution, the willingness to take risks during this period of life has granted an adaptive edge. Succeeding often requires moving out of the home and into less secure situations. “The more you seek novelty and take risks,” says Baird, “the better you do.” This responsiveness to reward thus works like the desire for new sensation: It gets you out of the house and into new turf.
As Steinberg’s driving game suggests, teens respond strongly to social rewards. Physiology and evolutionary theory alike offer explanations for this tendency. Physiologically, adolescence brings a peak in the brain’s sensitivity to dopamine, a neurotransmitter that appears to prime and fire reward circuits and aids in learning patterns and making decisions. This helps explain the teen’s quickness of learning and extraordinary receptivity to rewardand his keen, sometimes melodramatic reaction to success as well as defeat.
The teen brain is similarly attuned to oxytocin, another neural hormone, which (among other things) makes social connections in particular more rewarding. The neural networks and dynamics associated with general reward and social interactions overlap heavily. Engage one, and you often engage the other. Engage them during adolescence, and you light a fire.
This helps explain another trait that marks adolescence: Teens prefer the company of those their own age more than ever before or after. At one level, this passion for same-age peers merely expresses in the social realm the teen’s general attraction to novelty: Teens offer teens far more novelty than familiar old family does.
Yet teens gravitate toward peers for another, more powerful reason: to invest in the future rather than the past. We enter a world made by our parents. But we will live most of our lives, and prosper (or not) in a world run and remade by our peers. Knowing, understanding, and building relationships with them bears critically on success. Socially savvy rats or monkeys, for instance, generally get the best nesting areas or territories, the most food and water, more allies, and more sex with better and fitter mates. And no species is more intricately and deeply social than humans are.
This supremely human characteristic makes peer relations not a sideshow but the main show. Some brain-scan studies, in fact, suggest that our brains react to peer exclusion much as they respond to threats to physical health or food supply. At a neural level, in other words, we perceive social rejection as a threat to existence. Knowing this might make it easier to abide the hysteria of a 13-year-old deceived by a friend or the gloom of a 15-year-old not invited to a party. These people! we lament. They react to social ups and downs as if their fates depended upon them! They’re right. They do.
Excitement, novelty, risk, the company of peers. These traits may seem to add up to nothing more than doing foolish new stuff with friends. Look deeper, however, and you see that these traits that define adolescence make us more adaptive, both as individuals and as a species. That’s doubtless why these traits, broadly defined, seem to show themselves in virtually all human cultures, modern or tribal. They may concentrate and express themselves more starkly in modern Western cultures, in which teens spend so much time with each other. But anthropologists have found that virtually all the world’s cultures recognize adolescence as a distinct period in which adolescents prefer novelty, excitement, and peers. This near-universal recognition sinks the notion that it’s a cultural construct.
Culture clearly shapes adolescence. It influences its expression and possibly its length. It can magnify its manifestations. Yet culture does not create adolescence. The period’s uniqueness rises from genes and developmental processes that have been selected for over thousands of generations because they play an amplified role during this key transitional period: producing a creature optimally primed to leave a safe home and move into unfamiliar territory.
The move outward from home is the most difficult thing that humans do, as well as the most criticalnot just for individuals but for a species that has shown an unmatched ability to master challenging new environments. In scientific terms, teenagers can be a pain in the ass. But they are quite possibly the most fully, crucially adaptive human beings around. Without them, humanity might not have so readily spread across the globe.
This adaptive-adolescence view, however accurate, can be tricky to come to terms withthe more so for parents dealing with teens in their most trying, contrary, or flat-out scary moments. It’s reassuring to recast worrisome aspects as signs of an organism learning how to negotiate its surroundings. But natural selection swings a sharp edge, and the teen’s sloppier moments can bring unbearable consequences. We may not run the risk of being killed in ritualistic battles or being eaten by leopards, but drugs, drinking, driving, and crime take a mighty toll. My son lives, and thrives, sans car, at college. Some of his high school friends, however, died during their driving experiments. Our children wield their adaptive plasticity amid small but horrific risks.
We parents, of course, often stumble too, as we try to walk the blurry line between helping and hindering our kids as they adapt to adulthood. The United States spends about a billion dollars a year on programs to counsel adolescents on violence, gangs, suicide, sex, substance abuse, and other potential pitfalls. Few of them work.
Yet we can and do help. We can ward off some of the world’s worst hazards and nudge adolescents toward appropriate responses to the rest. Studies show that when parents engage and guide their teens with a light but steady hand, staying connected but allowing independence, their kids generally do much better in life. Adolescents want to learn primarily, but not entirely, from their friends. At some level and at some times (and it’s the parent’s job to spot when), the teen recognizes that the parent can offer certain kernels of wisdomknowledge valued not because it comes from parental authority but because it comes from the parent’s own struggles to learn how the world turns. The teen rightly perceives that she must understand not just her parents’ world but also the one she is entering. Yet if allowed to, she can appreciate that her parents once faced the same problems and may remember a few things worth knowing.
Meanwhile, in times of doubt, take inspiration in one last distinction of the teen braina final key to both its clumsiness and its remarkable adaptability. This is the prolonged plasticity of those late-developing frontal areas as they slowly mature. As noted earlier, these areas are the last to lay down the fatty myelin insulationthe brain’s white matterthat speeds transmission. And at first glance this seems like bad news: If we need these areas for the complex task of entering the world, why aren’t they running at full speed when the challenges are most daunting?
The answer is that speed comes at the price of flexibility. While a myelin coating greatly accelerates an axon’s bandwidth, it also inhibits the growth of new branches from the axon. According to Douglas Fields, an NIH neuroscientist who has spent years studying myelin, “This makes the period when a brain area lays down myelin a sort of crucial period of learningthe wiring is getting upgraded, but once that’s done, it’s harder to change.”
The window in which experience can best rewire those connections is highly specific to each brain area. Thus the brain’s language centers acquire their insulation most heavily in the first 13 years, when a child is learning language. The completed insulation consolidates those gainsbut makes further gains, such as second languages, far harder to come by.
So it is with the forebrain’s myelination during the late teens and early 20s. This delayed completiona withholding of readinessheightens flexibility just as we confront and enter the world that we will face as adults.
This long, slow, back-to-front developmental wave, completed only in the mid-20s, appears to be a uniquely human adaptation. It may be one of our most consequential. It can seem a bit crazy that we humans don’t wise up a bit earlier in life. But if we smartened up sooner, we’d end up dumber.