I KNEW they were a little too creepy
True.com has always given me the creeps. Their ads are far too blatantly sexual for a reputable dating site, and the way they tout their use of background checks has always made me suspicious. Today's New York Times helps support some of my distaste for True, and hopefully soon someone will be able to prove that True.com is a completely evil tool of the devil.
What first irked me was the juxtaposition between their purported propriety and their lascivious advertising. It screams dishonesty, or at least ulterior motives.
They tout the fact that they require all users to undergo a criminal background check when signing up for their site, ostensibly to weed out felons and married people trying to lie about their status, and they use this as a selling point to position themselves as a more upstanding company. But then their ads feature shirtless women (look closely at the ad with the woman in the pink shirt, the garment is actually her bare skin color-corrected in photoshop) gazing longingly into the camera. The headlines say things like "it's nice to be naughty" and other I'm a whore, come do me sentiments.
But if this were merely misleading advertising, it could be dismissed as someone trying to make a buck. More alarm bells go off when I hear that the company doing the background checks for True.com is ChoicePoint, the same company that sold convicted felon information to Florida before the 2000 election and royally screwed up democracy in the process.
So not only is True.com run by the kind of creeps that use sex to make money, they're the kind of creeps who use sex to lure people into their data-mining trap so they can turn our country into a fascist corporate state run by a bunch of arrogant Texas tycoons.
P.S. I love Texas, my mom lives there. It's just some of the businessmen that come out of there I have a problem with.