Beverly HillsJune 21-22, 2012
Register | Agenda| Exhibit
 
Köln September 10-11, 2012
Register | Agenda| Exhibit
 
Moscow October 25-26, 2012
Register | Agenda| Exhibit
 
Sydney November 8-9, 2012
Register | Agenda| Exhibit

Register by
May 31
and save $400!

It is currently Tue May 22, 2012 12:28 pm


Dating Industry and Matchmaking Industry Forums

Business Message Board for the Dating, Online Personals, Social Dating, Mobile Dating, Dating Affiliate and Matchmaking Industry

All times are UTC




Bookmark This Topic   Delicious   Digg   Reddit   Magnolia   Newsvine   Furl   Facebook   Technorati

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:47 am 
Hi people,

There've been so many words said and written in regards with the legislation initiated by True.com. I usually prefer to stay away from this fruitful arguments, 'cause True is not going to pay me to promote their stuff unlike all these PhD's and lobbyists on True's payroll.
But this time I decided to break my silence. Here is why.
People who understand the nature of the discussion keep saying that any kind of automated background check is not going to work because its very limitations. Therefore, security it is supposed to bring is more of an illusion. If so, why should the government be involved? It's all true.
But now it seems I have an ultimate argument to support the idea that regulators should stay away from this.
As we all recognize safety and security are essentially important. No doubt about it. So if we assume that the security issue is resolved thank to “restless” True.com efforts, then the government should be involved in safety as well. I mean health issues associated with dating itself. Since dating and matchmaking are all about relationships and ultimately sex in the end, then a user should be provided with guarantees that the counterpart he/she is dating with is free of STI (sexually transmitted infections) and HIV-AIDS in particular.
Nobody will argue that health issue is as important as security. So the question is where is logic? If there is the background check legislation there must be STI check legislation too. And dating provider must be held liable.
And since True is such a great protector of users' security, it also should implement STI check for all of its users. Otherwise, once somebody gets infected he/she will certainly require compensation from the provider.
Someone may say, "Use condoms." And it'd be true. But condoms do not protect 100%. It's first. And second, a similar argument can be brought up in to the background check discussion. "Meet in a public place. And expose all your relationship. You'll be 100% safe."
I'd love to hear from True guys and their PhD marketers.

Alex


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

phpBB SEO

iDate was mentioned in:


PC World
Miami Herald
New York Post
Globe and Mail
BBC
CBS News
Sydney Morning Herald
Fast Company

FUTURE INTERNET DATING & DATING INDUSTRY CONFERENCES

Beverly Hills, United States : June 20-22, 2012  (West Coast summit - & Internet & Mobile Technologies)

Köln, Germany : September 10-11, 2012 (European Market Focus & Internet & Mobile Technologies)

Moscow, Russian Federation : October 25-26. 2012 (Eastern European Market Focus)

Sydney, Australia : November 8-9 2012 (Asian Market Focus)

Las Vegas, United States : January 23-25, 2013 (Global Market Focus)


Copyright © 2003-2012 Internet Business Conferences LTD All Rights Reserved
Questions? Telephone: +1 (212) 722 1744 X 71
Affiliate Program

  • Furl
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • facebook
  • friendfeed
  • linkedIn