The reporter originally claimed there were something like 5,000,000 women bots and 12,000 real women. Turns out the numbers were more like the other way around.
I'm not linking to her article admitting her mistake as it's pathetic how she tries to cover up her mistake with more allegations based on incomplete data.
This is a perfect example of why blogs shouldn't be relied on as news sources, and you're the one asking me for citations? Where are your citations?
This is not a convincing argument in any way at all. You're behaving indistinguishably from someone just making shit up.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-avid-...
This refutation was widely reported, although unsurprisingly not as much as the original cockup.
While quite a lot more women used the service then the analyst initially thought, it is still true that AM did a lot to encourage men to pay them based on contact with fake accounts, and it apparently worked: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/09/one-chart-that-shows-how-mu...
Ashley Madison was still a sad, exploitative scam.