4 ms·
A system that effectively marginalizes half the population into a dating underclass isn't really a solution. If anything it just creates more problems like rese
by rl3 8y ago
A system that effectively marginalizes half the population into a dating underclass isn't really a solution. If anything it just creates more problems like resentment further down the line. Not to mention how such a system would even handle people who are genderqueer, for example.
I get the safety aspect of it, and I get fact it's an easy way to cut down on a lot of toxicity, but it's a shortcut that's fundamentally antithetical to equality in the long run.
There's likely a way to maintain the same level of safety for everyone, but I suspect it'd involve a lot more effort on behalf of the platform.
- metalliqaz 8y agoEquality? whaaaa? Being a man, and given the context from the OP, I assume I would be in that marginalized population? But no. I'm not going to get any attention from disinterested females anyway. This is how the human species seems to work. I would volunteer to use a system that preselected my list of possible mates to those who actually want to hear from me. It really saves me a lot of rejection, which is nice.
- rl3 8y agoCeding control to algorithms is dangerous, though. It kills the human element, the magic that could've happened if only you were given a shot. Algorithms make assumptions that are often wrong, and if the platform is prevalent enough, you're effectively forced to submit to it since everyone else does. Worse yet, some platforms will actively prohibit creating a new account, so you effectively end up tied to the worth placed on you by a proprietary algorithm.
- metalliqaz 8y agoWhat algorithms? The described system is controlled by the human female customers.
- rl3 8y agoI may have read too much into the wording of your description there, my apologies. Still, who you're shown to and how often is very much algorithmic on existing platforms. People with high rankings are typically shown first and thus get a disproportionate amount of attention. For the system you describe to work equitably (setting aside one gender swipes first), you would need to be shown in non-ranked fashion to users. Major platforms generally don't do that right now for a myriad of reasons which include supply/demand realities, user retention, and straight up greed.
- telesilla 8y agoI absolutely get what you're saying and I would welcome a better solution. The fact is, right now the friendliest options are the ones that give women more control. I don't spend my professional life thinking about how to improve these algorithms and processes but I welcome new developments from those who do!
- jetrink 8y agoWhat about allowing anyone to decide to be hidden? The feature could still exist without its being associated with a specific gender.
- rl3 8y agoTinder's paid tiers have a similar feature, "only show me to people I've liked" or some such. In practice it just crushes your match flow, and presumably creates a paradox wherein two users with that setting enabled will never see each other. I agree though, there's ways to do this that still retain safety. Something along the lines of public key cryptography for dating. :)