Luckily, most of the entire human race agrees with me.

Maybe you don't think it's inherently unethical to cheat on your partner. But it is certainly an act of questionable morality. In fact, it is literally illegal in many states: "Adultery isn't just a crime in the eyes of your spouse. In 21 states, cheating in a marriage is against the law, punishable by a fine or even jail time."

You, and all of the other moral relativists can tell me I'm an extremist, or a purist, but basically I just believe in justice. You cheat, you deserve to get caught. You run a site for cheaters, you deserve to get hacked.

That's entirely disingenuous. There have been less than a dozen prosecutions for adultery in the last forty years in the US, all of which were classified as misdemeanors.

"It is generally accepted that one of the reasons adultery laws remain in effect is that getting rid of them would require politicians to vocally oppose them, something few are willing to do. Additionally, "many like the idea of the criminal code serving as a kind of moral guide even if certain laws are almost never applied".

But that's a lot less powerful a missive than your screed about laws dating back to the 18th Century (hey, pop quiz, did you know that in six of those states, that crime of cheating in a marriage only applies to women?).

So the hack was wrong in the remaining 29 states? Sounds like moral relativism right there.

In the US, justice must be pursued by legal means, else there's no case. These hackers just removed any chance of prosecution in the 21 states, because of tainted discovery.

I never argued that it was any less wrong in those states. My point in including that line was to demonstrate that I am not the only one who believes that cheating is a moral offense against your partner, worthy of at least some repercussion. In the eyes of 21 states, it is literally a crime. So my moralisms remain absolute, regardless of the other states. The fact remains that if these hackers had not lifted these docs, not one of these incidents would have ever faced their day of reckoning from the spouses they betrayed. That to me, is justice served.

That part sounds true. But the cost of this justice was high. Privacy is under attack at every turn. Its a dirty victory.

how do you know they betrayed anyone? Have you ever considered that people may have marriages that look differently from what you think marriage should be ?

to the downvoters, have you ever heard of open marriages ?

If there are open marriages then the spouse that was not using this service would not have a problem.

Yes, the public knowing (if this bothered the open couple) is an injury.

human race used to agree on a lot of things we find incorrect today, so that's a pretty weak argument.

But that aside, does it ? Do most people agree that the website shouldn't exist ?

Anal sex was illegal in some states up until recently, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for it to be illegal

The website doesn't force you to cheat on your partner, you could for example, let your partner know you are on it. Some people on it are in sexless marriages, for example

For me, at least, there is something that repulses me about the idea of a service that encourages violation of deep partner trust. It seems the opposite of "open" to me.

On the other hand, I can also understand the argument for choice and privacy. But, without going deeper here, this type and method of choice and privacy stinks to my nose (if you understand my sense).

I mean, seems like this site exists in a way where one partner gets hurt. Even if the partner in-the-dark doesn't know about an affair, the effects of the affair will still have an impact. The cheater may also act out more often with a false sense of security and access provided by the app.

This thing is bound to be controversial, and bound to get hacked/exposed. Morals and business mix potently here.

yes, it may very well be bound to get hacked, that doesn't make the ones doing the hacking moral or ethical or anything of the sort.

I disagree, since the ethics and morality of this service itself is gray, then the ethics of exposing those using the service is at least somewhat gray, whether it breaks a law or not.

that seems like fallacious reasoning to me. Ethics of cigarette industry are possibly grey, that doesn't mean it's ethical for you to break into their offices and steal their coffee maker.

But exposing their ethics and who tried to hide the fact that smoking has been linked to cancer, that is gray.