> write a new one saying why it was wrong or what has changed

The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed.

Approximately 50 million things have changed.

It may have been part of the terms of the sale. Would you turn them down?

It depends. Is that $50,000,000 actually going into my bank account? How much do I personally stand to gain from it? How badly does my business need the $50M?

But in the end, I probably would take the article down, too.

At the beginning of any kind relationship, it's generally best not to point out the other person's flaws - that kind of behaviour is traditionally saved for the breakup :)

I guess the same is true for okcupid and match.com.

Sure, but if I write an article about how much the Church of Scientology sucks, and then start dating someone who's a member, I'm not gonna go back and erase it.

Is that why you're still single? ;-)

.. is that why you're still able to comment freely on the internet? ;)

We may pick on OKCupid team for that, but most of us under similar circumstances would probably do the same (delete the article). Just because of implicit pressure from new corporate culture.

We are not under similar circumstances though, so I enjoy pointing fingers at OKCupid for that.

according to OKCupid's response (http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/okcupid-we-didnt-censor-ou...) something has changed: OKCupid's CEO "got to know" match.com a little better (through access to more accurate statistics, etc.) and has backed off his previously "exaggerated" stance against paid models

the timing definitely leaves this difficult to believe

> The problem is that it wasn't wrong, and nothing has changed.

It's certainly not wrong, but something has changed. OkCupid now reports to match.com, which is among the largest paid dating sites in the world.

edit I don't know the specifics, but IAC owns Match.com, and also OkCupid, but does that mean that Match.com oversees OkCupid? My statement above might be wrong on that alone.

Oh, I meant nothing changed in their original analysis of match.com.

Well, presumably now they have access to the real, not benefit-of-the-doubt, numbers. Which only makes Match.com look worse...

It appears that Match.com does control OkCupid.

"IAC's Match.com Acquires OkCupid"

http://iac.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1882

We have always been at war with Eastasia

I signed up for OkCupid years ago, probably around 2005/6 .. I liked the site a lot.

The site always had a lot of emphasis on tests and quizes - and had a main OkCupid test, which was used to introduce the site and categorise each new member into different persona-types.

I remember, in the test, there was the line "if you have any STDs please go .. " with a link to match.com.

I expect that's been 'cleansed' from the site too :)

Rewriting history? Come on, the post was a marketing piece. It was written for business purposes and was later removed due to business purposes.

It's similar to Coke buying Pepsi and then Pepsi removing ads that make fun of Nike. Sure, the post was a bit more factual than the average ad but it's not like it was a scientific paper either.

There's a difference between rewriting history and scrubbing it. I think rewriting is far worse offence.

Regardless, I still disagree with the removal of the article.

What is the difference between rewriting history and changing history by removing things?

Similar to the difference between actively lying and telling part of the whole truth.