10 ms·

Don’t Trust Facebook with Your Love Life

199 points by whalabi 7y ago

atlasunshrugged 7y ago
I hit a paywall halfway through unfortunately but I'm guessing I got the gist. A counterpoint (although just playing devils advocate here, I try to give social media sites as little info as possible while still making them useful for my work) is that Facebook knows a lot about many people, likely including those in your network and probably out of any service with the exception of maybe Google, could make an optimal match for you if it wanted to based on personality, interests, etc. I've always thought it strange how people marry or get into relationships generally with people in their immediate or secondary circle of friends/colleagues/classmates when it seems incredibly unlikely that the best match for you is in that group out of a few billion people in the world. Personally I'd love a tool that found me the optimal match even if they weren't in my circle and I think FB could probably deliver that with their dating app if they wanted to
- bloak 7y ago
  I think the problem of finding an "optimal" match is much harder than that. Younger people don't know themselves so well, or know what's best for them. Yet they are very flexible and could adapt themselves to lots of very different people if they happened to end up spending a lot of time with them.
writepub 7y ago
While the advice is valid and agreeable, many people have already used Facebook successfully for dating, based on many of the same parameters FB plans to use. Only difference being the degrees of separation - without FB's dating app, it was likely to be closer in degrees of separation (friend of a friend)
darawk 7y ago
Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point? What feels like every day, they come up with some pre-text to write (or publish, in the case of editorials) an anti-tech article. Two today, the Amazon one, and now this. Certainly, there are big problems with some aspects of tech and they ought to be reported on. But it seems like there's something a bit more going on here than that, given their willingness to publish silly, conceptually thin articles like this. This entire editorial is essentially content free. The only point it makes is to summarize Facebook's shortcomings, which didn't require the launch of a new dating feature to do, if it had something new to say. But it didn't, so it used FB's announcement as a pretext to publish a set of stock criticisms.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.
  - writepub 7y ago
    Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions. Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks. On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of. A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen). Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult. As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...
stared 7y ago
I am waiting to use a FB dating feature. Even if it is bad, other options are substantially worse. First, the main website that took into account preferences (OKCupid) is almost gone, Tinderified. And Tinder itself does not look at preferences at all. If you are a type of person who dates people randomly met on a bus stop or in a bar, it may work for you. If you expect any more, it is a lottery. Second, only a small fraction of people who are looking for partner(s) are active on any dating apps. At the same time (anecdotally) a lot of people meet at a party organized by a friend, or through some special interest groups (i.e.: common friends, social groups or interests). Side note: I already had quite a few great dates with people I met on Facebook (first interacting on some groups). Then, with common interests, seeing how one interacts in public, and potentially - common friends, there is a much higher chance to have commonalities. Plus, they are more than a "business card".
- savolai 7y ago
  To be fair, if you genuinely reflect what you care about in your profile text, and only interact with people who do so too, Tinder can work too. Has for me anyway :) . Of course this relies somewhat on you doing some substantial swiping to find those profiles that do.
  - stared 7y ago
    UX: The interface is pretty much against that (it requires at least 2 more click to see what's behind), and it seems to be intentional. Filtering - in software engineering terms, there is a difference between search with O(n) (going through all elements) and in O(log(n)) with a binary search. Let's assume that I would find 1% people good for dating (usually a tweet-length message is not enough). It is a lot of wasted time. Again, if you care more about looks than personality, then Tinder is a perfect tool. (Once I found a relationship on Tinder, and yes, the description stood out, but overall the signal-to-noise ratio is poor.) On OKC I can preselect for some things that are required.
    - hombre_fatal 7y ago
      "Personality over looks" almost sounds like Nice Guy territory to me. It's dating. If you aren't even remotely attracted to the other person, then you're likely to waste both of yall's time with further action. You filter by looks all the time in the wild. Also, if you're willing to give people-you're-not-attracted-to a chance, how is Tinder any different? Are you saying you are never liked by someone on Tinder that you aren't attracted to? Nothing is stopping you from sticking around for their potentially amazing personality. I bet you just don't because you need some initial attraction like the rest of us whether online or at the bar. Usually this complaint has to do with men getting no matches. But it's basically men complaining that women with options don't pick them, and online dating sucks because it gives women too many options making it hard for them to compete. It's like country boys complaining about women moving to the city. The realities of dating were already brutal before online dating.
return0 7y ago
This is too blatant of a hit piece from NYtimes, low quality and ... wtf is it doing in HN frontpage (top spot, no less)? I would urge people to upvote quality, not their personal outrages. Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.
- moate 7y ago
  Ah yes, the classic "Facebook already knows everything about you so why not just use them for every facet of your life to prevent other companies from doing what Facebook does with your data" defense. 1- It's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are never expected to uphold the same levels of journalistic standard as reporting. It's understood to literally just be, one guys opinion. Some are good. Some are bad. Take with a grain of salt, call me in the morning. 2- Explain to me why Facebook deserves to be trusted and this guy is making mountains out of molehills? Do you genuinely believe FB is a misunderstood good actor here, or are you just annoyed about something else? (the NYT, "anti-tech" journalism in general, the rise of anti-corporation sentiments over the last 10 years?)
ChuckNorris89 7y ago
I distrust Facebook as much as everyone but is trusting tinder and its parent company any better?
- pluma 7y ago
  Yes. The problem with FB is that it already has a ton of data about you, trusting it for dating means giving it even more. Additionally FB has a track record of being extremely reckless with your data and being dishonest about what data it actually gathers, how it is being used and who it is being shared with.
- lm28469 7y ago
  I'd prefer to trust separate companies with limited topics, than giving everything to one big company that has proven time and time again that they simply don't care about how they handle your personal data as long as they can make money out of it. But then again I'm neither on fb, tinder nor anything like that so I'll let people decide for themselves.
- 0xdeadb00f 7y ago
  Maybe? It's better because you don't allow Facebook to continue to harvest data about you, and add to the plethora of personal information they already have. But with whatever service you use, your data is still being held by somebody in the end. So depending on what you're willing to give to who in order to use a service, it might be better or worse.
mscasts 7y ago
This is a pretty bad article imo. I don't trust Facebook with anything and they make a fair point that they are not monetizing the service which probably means they are collecting data from it to use in some way that is not yet clear for the general population. But this is basically what Facebook already does, so if you already have a Facebook account and trust Facebook with that data I don't see a reason to trust them further.
- taneq 7y ago
  > they are not monetizing the service which probably means they are collecting data from it to use in some way You're not wrong. I feel it's worth pointing out, however, that the opposite (paid/monetised -> not collecting data) is frequently assumed when it really doesn't hold.
- ape4 7y ago
  Stay tuned for ads in the main part of Facebook for users of Facebook Dating... Are you lonely? Use product ABC it will brighten your teeth and your love life.
  - mscasts 7y ago
    Yes but I don't think most people care about being advertised to like that. That is why they keep using Facebook. You don't have to convince me, I deleted my account years ago.
nfrankel 7y ago
Just don't trust Facebook. Period.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  It’s so painfully obvious the facebook Apps listen for key words to advertise to you. If facebook didn't buy instagram they would already be my-spaced.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    Not wishing to defend Facebook, but wasn't there a study recently that disproved this once and for all?
    - moksly 7y ago
      I think there was, but I’m not sure if I think it was any real consolation. I mean, what’s worse? Being listened to or them having so much data on us that they can somewhat accurately predict our behaviour before we’ve even decided for ourselves?
      - blackflame7000 7y ago
        > somewhat accurately predict our behavior before we’ve even decided for ourselves? The brain is still a formidable computing device not easily emulated or understood. AI Engines of today are limited because they don't have intuition like the human Brain. They can't feel like something is off or a situation doesn't smell right. We are learning to master the rational decision-making process, but the emotional processes of the mind are what make us more than just drones. It's the X factor that makes life interesting.
    - abrugsch 7y ago
      anec-data here but I'll add it anyway. The "getting ads delivered based on the exact obscure thing you happened to be talking about just half an hour previously" trope was happenening to me with what was becoming laughable predictability and led me to uninstall the app from my phone permanently. It was just the final straw alongside a sudden massive uptick in notification spam [somebody you don't know in a group you're in liked a thread - NOTIFICATION... A friend of a friend of a friend you've never met and only have a tenuous connection with shared a thing... NOTIFICATION] whilst also erstwhile hiding things I was genuinely interesteded in because algorithm led me to change to first the mobile web version and then the "tinfoil" wrapped version and guess what... the strangely co-incidental ads for things related to conversations pretty much stopped overnight. Anec-data for sure but the co-incidences were uncanny.
mah_man 7y ago
Although I agree with the general sentiment here: the article being a shoddy hit piece by NYT, it is Facebook we are talking about. Considering FB aren’t monetizing this feature, do we know what kind of data they are gathering as part of the dating feature, how they are incentivizing it on a per user basis and does the user have a say in this or an option to opt-out? Also I’m curious as to how this feature make sense in the scenario where you have users creating an FB account just for the sake of using FB Dating and how effective would this be in finding a compatible match?
melicerte 7y ago
You can criticize the quality of the article as much as you want but this ... [quote] "There are no plans for ads and no plans for subscriptions.” No ads. No revenue. Just love. [/quote] ... is loaded with irony and accuracy (and a good reminder) IMHO.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  Just love, as we find out everyone’s relative attractiveness while they share personal details on compatibility
kgraves 7y ago
I’ll take it further, At this point, you should NOT trust ANY company or startup (especially VC funded) with any data you give to them and you should treat all companies with full suspicion. Security mishaps, leaks, Data misuse and most importantly spying are the reasons why we should not trust any of them. It shouldn’t end with Facebook, Google or any other surveillance capitalist company or startup. ALL companies spy on you with analytics and tracking agents and it would be naive to think otherwise. And you certainly should not trust them with your love life!
- Lio 7y ago
  You shouldn’t trust any commercial organisation regardless of what sector it’s in. It’s not that “Business” is inherently bad in some way,it’s that corporations are relatively unthinking optimising entities that move towards what’s profitable. Without legal frameworks to constrain them they’ll run over you or anything else including the environment to maximise shareholder value. It’s their raison d’être for existing.
trax 7y ago
you people need to get out more
alt_f4 7y ago
yet another NYT anti-tech hit piece
- Lio 7y ago
  If “tech” keeps doing bad things, and it will until legally constrained or it becomes unprofitable, you can expect its misdeeds to be reported. ...because reporting bad behaviour is profitable too.
  - dymk 7y ago
    We clearly disagree on what “bad behavior” is
  - alt_f4 7y ago
    dating app = bad behavior?
    - Lio 7y ago
      A dating app by itself clearly isn't bad behaviour but the "hit piece" you mentioned is about not trusting Facebook. People don't trust Facebook because of the other things they've done very recently. i.e. the tax avoidance, the shadow profiles of non-users, the marketing of addictive game purchases to children, manipulation of time lines to alter user mood and everything else in a very long list of negatives that's been in the news in the last few years. Until some length of time has passed between the way Facebook has historically operated and them acting honourably, each new product they build will be seen through the lens of a bad actor expanding its empire.
personjerry 7y ago
I don't even trust myself with my love life.
louisv 7y ago
One unexpected effect that could arise from this for Facebook, is that people using this feature could start displaying negative emotions towards the main app. All it takes is a bad date, some awkward rejection, or a stalker experience to start feeling ill about using Facebook dating, and by extension, Facebook.
kerng 7y ago
This new book seems quite fitting: Tools and Weapons: The Promise and the Peril of the Digital Age https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-Digital/dp/1984877712 https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-Digital/d...
hsnewman 7y ago
So on the Hacker News front page at this time we have another article titled: "Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims". Online dating is rife with romance scams, how does facebook plan on protecting it's members from this fraud?
KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
I don't expect this article to play well with a tech audience who knows that FB's data breaches aren't anything special, every company has data breaches just FB is a bigger target.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > with a tech audience who knows that FB's data breaches aren't anything special 2 days ago; HN comments: Facebook is clearly lying about the phone number breach as it has recently been added to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917 1 week ago; HN comments: How do Facebook employees live with themselves downloading all android std libs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931 Today: HN Comment: FBS data breaches aren't anything special
Simulacra 7y ago
Facebook is getting into the dating game because of data. Look at all the data you give all of these dating websites from Tinder to OkCupid. If you really wanna know what someone thinks, get the analysis of the dating website. Then you can sell that to companies, insurance companies, the government, anyone.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  Even better, would you rather market to the Hot Blonde girl with 1000s of suitors or the proverbial "Kip Drordy" from south park? Now you can figure out who's word of mouth really matters and that is the beginning of a dark society where only the elite and beautiful have power.
hcnews 7y ago
Is there an easily accessible version of this article? I don't want to log in to NYT.
annajamey 7y ago
The apps could be your alternative choice.

199 points by whalabi 7y ago

I hit a paywall halfway through unfortunately but I'm guessing I got the gist. A counterpoint (although just playing devils advocate here, I try to give social media sites as little info as possible while still making them useful for my work) is that Facebook knows a lot about many people, likely including those in your network and probably out of any service with the exception of maybe Google, could make an optimal match for you if it wanted to based on personality, interests, etc. I've always thought it strange how people marry or get into relationships generally with people in their immediate or secondary circle of friends/colleagues/classmates when it seems incredibly unlikely that the best match for you is in that group out of a few billion people in the world. Personally I'd love a tool that found me the optimal match even if they weren't in my circle and I think FB could probably deliver that with their dating app if they wanted to

bloak 7y ago
I think the problem of finding an "optimal" match is much harder than that. Younger people don't know themselves so well, or know what's best for them. Yet they are very flexible and could adapt themselves to lots of very different people if they happened to end up spending a lot of time with them.

writepub 7y ago

While the advice is valid and agreeable, many people have already used Facebook successfully for dating, based on many of the same parameters FB plans to use. Only difference being the degrees of separation - without FB's dating app, it was likely to be closer in degrees of separation (friend of a friend)

darawk 7y ago

Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point? What feels like every day, they come up with some pre-text to write (or publish, in the case of editorials) an anti-tech article. Two today, the Amazon one, and now this. Certainly, there are big problems with some aspects of tech and they ought to be reported on. But it seems like there's something a bit more going on here than that, given their willingness to publish silly, conceptually thin articles like this. This entire editorial is essentially content free. The only point it makes is to summarize Facebook's shortcomings, which didn't require the launch of a new dating feature to do, if it had something new to say. But it didn't, so it used FB's announcement as a pretext to publish a set of stock criticisms.

mieseratte 7y ago
> This entire editorial is essentially content free. I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them. Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.
- writepub 7y ago
  Internet killed the paper star. Before news went online, good, reliable content was paid for with subscriptions. Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks. On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of. A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Subscriptions were never the only revenue source for newspapers. They have always had ads.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      There was a time when subscriptions had little to no ads, and ads were clearly marked as such. Now we have ads all over the place, videos autoplaying, and "influencers" (read: shady salesmen). Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult. As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...

stared 7y ago

I am waiting to use a FB dating feature. Even if it is bad, other options are substantially worse. First, the main website that took into account preferences (OKCupid) is almost gone, Tinderified. And Tinder itself does not look at preferences at all. If you are a type of person who dates people randomly met on a bus stop or in a bar, it may work for you. If you expect any more, it is a lottery. Second, only a small fraction of people who are looking for partner(s) are active on any dating apps. At the same time (anecdotally) a lot of people meet at a party organized by a friend, or through some special interest groups (i.e.: common friends, social groups or interests). Side note: I already had quite a few great dates with people I met on Facebook (first interacting on some groups). Then, with common interests, seeing how one interacts in public, and potentially - common friends, there is a much higher chance to have commonalities. Plus, they are more than a "business card".

savolai 7y ago
To be fair, if you genuinely reflect what you care about in your profile text, and only interact with people who do so too, Tinder can work too. Has for me anyway :) . Of course this relies somewhat on you doing some substantial swiping to find those profiles that do.
- stared 7y ago
  UX: The interface is pretty much against that (it requires at least 2 more click to see what's behind), and it seems to be intentional. Filtering - in software engineering terms, there is a difference between search with O(n) (going through all elements) and in O(log(n)) with a binary search. Let's assume that I would find 1% people good for dating (usually a tweet-length message is not enough). It is a lot of wasted time. Again, if you care more about looks than personality, then Tinder is a perfect tool. (Once I found a relationship on Tinder, and yes, the description stood out, but overall the signal-to-noise ratio is poor.) On OKC I can preselect for some things that are required.
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    "Personality over looks" almost sounds like Nice Guy territory to me. It's dating. If you aren't even remotely attracted to the other person, then you're likely to waste both of yall's time with further action. You filter by looks all the time in the wild. Also, if you're willing to give people-you're-not-attracted-to a chance, how is Tinder any different? Are you saying you are never liked by someone on Tinder that you aren't attracted to? Nothing is stopping you from sticking around for their potentially amazing personality. I bet you just don't because you need some initial attraction like the rest of us whether online or at the bar. Usually this complaint has to do with men getting no matches. But it's basically men complaining that women with options don't pick them, and online dating sucks because it gives women too many options making it hard for them to compete. It's like country boys complaining about women moving to the city. The realities of dating were already brutal before online dating.

return0 7y ago

This is too blatant of a hit piece from NYtimes, low quality and ... wtf is it doing in HN frontpage (top spot, no less)? I would urge people to upvote quality, not their personal outrages. Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.

moate 7y ago
Ah yes, the classic "Facebook already knows everything about you so why not just use them for every facet of your life to prevent other companies from doing what Facebook does with your data" defense. 1- It's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are never expected to uphold the same levels of journalistic standard as reporting. It's understood to literally just be, one guys opinion. Some are good. Some are bad. Take with a grain of salt, call me in the morning. 2- Explain to me why Facebook deserves to be trusted and this guy is making mountains out of molehills? Do you genuinely believe FB is a misunderstood good actor here, or are you just annoyed about something else? (the NYT, "anti-tech" journalism in general, the rise of anti-corporation sentiments over the last 10 years?)

ChuckNorris89 7y ago

I distrust Facebook as much as everyone but is trusting tinder and its parent company any better?

pluma 7y ago
Yes. The problem with FB is that it already has a ton of data about you, trusting it for dating means giving it even more. Additionally FB has a track record of being extremely reckless with your data and being dishonest about what data it actually gathers, how it is being used and who it is being shared with.
lm28469 7y ago
I'd prefer to trust separate companies with limited topics, than giving everything to one big company that has proven time and time again that they simply don't care about how they handle your personal data as long as they can make money out of it. But then again I'm neither on fb, tinder nor anything like that so I'll let people decide for themselves.
0xdeadb00f 7y ago
Maybe? It's better because you don't allow Facebook to continue to harvest data about you, and add to the plethora of personal information they already have. But with whatever service you use, your data is still being held by somebody in the end. So depending on what you're willing to give to who in order to use a service, it might be better or worse.

mscasts 7y ago

This is a pretty bad article imo. I don't trust Facebook with anything and they make a fair point that they are not monetizing the service which probably means they are collecting data from it to use in some way that is not yet clear for the general population. But this is basically what Facebook already does, so if you already have a Facebook account and trust Facebook with that data I don't see a reason to trust them further.

taneq 7y ago
> they are not monetizing the service which probably means they are collecting data from it to use in some way You're not wrong. I feel it's worth pointing out, however, that the opposite (paid/monetised -> not collecting data) is frequently assumed when it really doesn't hold.
ape4 7y ago
Stay tuned for ads in the main part of Facebook for users of Facebook Dating... Are you lonely? Use product ABC it will brighten your teeth and your love life.
- mscasts 7y ago
  Yes but I don't think most people care about being advertised to like that. That is why they keep using Facebook. You don't have to convince me, I deleted my account years ago.

nfrankel 7y ago

Just don't trust Facebook. Period.

blackflame7000 7y ago
It’s so painfully obvious the facebook Apps listen for key words to advertise to you. If facebook didn't buy instagram they would already be my-spaced.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Not wishing to defend Facebook, but wasn't there a study recently that disproved this once and for all?
  - moksly 7y ago
    I think there was, but I’m not sure if I think it was any real consolation. I mean, what’s worse? Being listened to or them having so much data on us that they can somewhat accurately predict our behaviour before we’ve even decided for ourselves?
    - blackflame7000 7y ago
      > somewhat accurately predict our behavior before we’ve even decided for ourselves? The brain is still a formidable computing device not easily emulated or understood. AI Engines of today are limited because they don't have intuition like the human Brain. They can't feel like something is off or a situation doesn't smell right. We are learning to master the rational decision-making process, but the emotional processes of the mind are what make us more than just drones. It's the X factor that makes life interesting.
  - abrugsch 7y ago
    anec-data here but I'll add it anyway. The "getting ads delivered based on the exact obscure thing you happened to be talking about just half an hour previously" trope was happenening to me with what was becoming laughable predictability and led me to uninstall the app from my phone permanently. It was just the final straw alongside a sudden massive uptick in notification spam [somebody you don't know in a group you're in liked a thread - NOTIFICATION... A friend of a friend of a friend you've never met and only have a tenuous connection with shared a thing... NOTIFICATION] whilst also erstwhile hiding things I was genuinely interesteded in because algorithm led me to change to first the mobile web version and then the "tinfoil" wrapped version and guess what... the strangely co-incidental ads for things related to conversations pretty much stopped overnight. Anec-data for sure but the co-incidences were uncanny.

mah_man 7y ago

Although I agree with the general sentiment here: the article being a shoddy hit piece by NYT, it is Facebook we are talking about. Considering FB aren’t monetizing this feature, do we know what kind of data they are gathering as part of the dating feature, how they are incentivizing it on a per user basis and does the user have a say in this or an option to opt-out? Also I’m curious as to how this feature make sense in the scenario where you have users creating an FB account just for the sake of using FB Dating and how effective would this be in finding a compatible match?

melicerte 7y ago

You can criticize the quality of the article as much as you want but this ... [quote] "There are no plans for ads and no plans for subscriptions.” No ads. No revenue. Just love. [/quote] ... is loaded with irony and accuracy (and a good reminder) IMHO.

blackflame7000 7y ago
Just love, as we find out everyone’s relative attractiveness while they share personal details on compatibility

kgraves 7y ago

I’ll take it further, At this point, you should NOT trust ANY company or startup (especially VC funded) with any data you give to them and you should treat all companies with full suspicion. Security mishaps, leaks, Data misuse and most importantly spying are the reasons why we should not trust any of them. It shouldn’t end with Facebook, Google or any other surveillance capitalist company or startup. ALL companies spy on you with analytics and tracking agents and it would be naive to think otherwise. And you certainly should not trust them with your love life!

Lio 7y ago
You shouldn’t trust any commercial organisation regardless of what sector it’s in. It’s not that “Business” is inherently bad in some way,it’s that corporations are relatively unthinking optimising entities that move towards what’s profitable. Without legal frameworks to constrain them they’ll run over you or anything else including the environment to maximise shareholder value. It’s their raison d’être for existing.

trax 7y ago

you people need to get out more

alt_f4 7y ago

yet another NYT anti-tech hit piece

Lio 7y ago
If “tech” keeps doing bad things, and it will until legally constrained or it becomes unprofitable, you can expect its misdeeds to be reported. ...because reporting bad behaviour is profitable too.
- dymk 7y ago
  We clearly disagree on what “bad behavior” is
- alt_f4 7y ago
  dating app = bad behavior?
  - Lio 7y ago
    A dating app by itself clearly isn't bad behaviour but the "hit piece" you mentioned is about not trusting Facebook. People don't trust Facebook because of the other things they've done very recently. i.e. the tax avoidance, the shadow profiles of non-users, the marketing of addictive game purchases to children, manipulation of time lines to alter user mood and everything else in a very long list of negatives that's been in the news in the last few years. Until some length of time has passed between the way Facebook has historically operated and them acting honourably, each new product they build will be seen through the lens of a bad actor expanding its empire.

personjerry 7y ago

I don't even trust myself with my love life.

louisv 7y ago

One unexpected effect that could arise from this for Facebook, is that people using this feature could start displaying negative emotions towards the main app. All it takes is a bad date, some awkward rejection, or a stalker experience to start feeling ill about using Facebook dating, and by extension, Facebook.

kerng 7y ago

This new book seems quite fitting: Tools and Weapons: The Promise and the Peril of the Digital Age https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-Digital/dp/1984877712 https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-Digital/d...

hsnewman 7y ago

So on the Hacker News front page at this time we have another article titled: "Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims". Online dating is rife with romance scams, how does facebook plan on protecting it's members from this fraud?

KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago

I don't expect this article to play well with a tech audience who knows that FB's data breaches aren't anything special, every company has data breaches just FB is a bigger target.

smileysteve 7y ago
> with a tech audience who knows that FB's data breaches aren't anything special 2 days ago; HN comments: Facebook is clearly lying about the phone number breach as it has recently been added to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917 1 week ago; HN comments: How do Facebook employees live with themselves downloading all android std libs? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931 Today: HN Comment: FBS data breaches aren't anything special

Simulacra 7y ago

Facebook is getting into the dating game because of data. Look at all the data you give all of these dating websites from Tinder to OkCupid. If you really wanna know what someone thinks, get the analysis of the dating website. Then you can sell that to companies, insurance companies, the government, anyone.

blackflame7000 7y ago
Even better, would you rather market to the Hot Blonde girl with 1000s of suitors or the proverbial "Kip Drordy" from south park? Now you can figure out who's word of mouth really matters and that is the beginning of a dark society where only the elite and beautiful have power.

hcnews 7y ago

Is there an easily accessible version of this article? I don't want to log in to NYT.

annajamey 7y ago

The apps could be your alternative choice.