New Jersey Governor Jim Corizon yesterday signed bill SB1977, which opponents argue will impose what critics consider unenforceable and problematic restrictions on dating sites and foster confusion among dating site visitors. For some historical perspective, similar bills aimed at moderating online dating have been proposed, and have failed, in Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, and California.
I will not go so far as to call the bill unconstitutional, as Emily Hackett at the Internet Alliance does, but I will say it is one slipshod piece of legislation. I mean that with the utmost respect for the NJ legislature, which clearly wasn’t well-enough informed about the bill as it passed through committee. Compared to homeland security and budget issues, a bill about putting 12 point text on a website is not a top priority.
I would have liked to speak with the legislative committee as they crafted the bill, which they say they based on similar legislation in Florida. Walking them through a typical online daters experience on various dating sites, discussing how sites will identify members within certain states (how do you do this on free sites?), what it means for dating sites and other issues the clearly have not entered into the discussion.
NJ Senate leader Richard Cody stated:
Hopefully this bill will remind people that they need to be cautious when using online dating sites. At the very least, this law will make people aware of whether or not a site does criminal background checks. Hopefully this will spark a dialogue and encourage people to take precautions, regardless of whether a site does background checks or not.
A law that reminds people to use common sense, how obvious. Did anyone spend a coffee break and think about the implications? What if the dating site offers background checks, but the customer has to pay for them? Does the dating site have to provide them automatically to be exempt from the warning? What if they are accessing the site from out of state?
Often, a dating site will have an affiliate program. Visitors enter the site through special customized landing pages. If they visited the site through an affiliate link, the site knows absolutely nothing about the person, so how can it know which messaging to display?
True.com of course Applauds Lawmakers for Passing Landmark Safer Dating Legislation. They started the whole process via the Safer Online Dating Alliance (SODA). Does anyone know how many dating sites belong to SODA?
True.com founder Herb Vest admits that legislation doesn’t make online dating safer, right in the press release.
I can’t guarantee that ex-felons and married individuals cannot get on TRUE; but, I can guarantee that they will be very, very sorry they did.”
How much will it cost for dating sites to create a new program which identifies a person is from New Jersey and displays the correct messaging on dynamic landing pages, email communications, chats and winks? $5,000, $25,000? Did anyone stop to think about this? How many dating sites will go out of business because they cannot afford to develop such a program?
Is SODA going to create a program and offer it free of charge that can be used by the majority of dating sites to comply with the new law? If not, the overall cost to the industry could be in the millions.
Via Online Personals Watch. Ars Technica has more details.
In related news Paidcontent says that Myspace announcing a joint effort with state attorneys general via the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking. The effort launches with a “Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Sites Safety� meant to be used industry-wide.
I wish the dating industry would get together like the social networks and create a similar working group that is inclusive of any dating site that wants to join. Systems need to be put in place to protect singles online, but this is not the right way to go about it. Serious discussion needs to occur, solutions need to be evaluated, a public review opportunity with feedback sessions and clearly defined solution that dating sites can follow to adhere to the law. Anything less is a disservice to singles and the dating industry.
