3 ms·

If you try to put an ad for a group-sex/sex-hookup app on CNN, Googe, Apple or NY Times you'll get denied as well. The headline is blatantly misleading, probab

by jariel 7y ago

If you try to put an ad for a group-sex/sex-hookup app on CNN, Googe, Apple or NY Times you'll get denied as well. The headline is blatantly misleading, probably purposefully so, which is sad and should make us wonder about the integrity of such organizations as well.

kennywinker 7y ago
I'm pretty sure Tinder would not have a problem advertising in the NY Times. There are plenty of people on Tinder explicitly seeking hookups, open relationships, or group sex.
- jariel 7y ago
  Tinder is a dating app, like other dating apps, can be possibly be used for hookups etc. but it's not directly advertised as such. A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation. But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved by any of those orgs. Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal' though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.
  - lozaning 7y ago
    As far as I can recall, when Tinder first came out it most certainly was explicitly for hookups and casual sex.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    I pretty much reject your false dichotomy of dating vs hookup apps. The difference between a date and a hookup is what exactly? But even if we let that stand - the app in the article that was turned down is called #Open and it's very much a dating app like tinder/bumble/hinge not a hookup app (https://www.hashtagopen.com https://www.hashtagopen.com) - it just has a bunch of features focussed on non-standard relationship models (polyamory, open relationships). The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a scam (https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-m...), so I have no problem with it being banned.
    - jariel 7y ago
      If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you, there's no point in my commenting on that. As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' - which is definitely different, but an often overlapping category. For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large audience to not have this included. Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of people within the Western World. FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'. If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very well within reason. So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        > If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you I’m sorry but you can’t brush the point off that easily. The difference between a date and a hookup is BS. Hookup is just a judgmental description of a short sexual relationship. E.g. Two people go on a ”date”. They have sex. They never see eachother again. Hookup, right? Except maybe they both are seeking a long term relationship, but due to sexual incompatibility or random life events they don’t end up seeing each other again. Now it seems more like a failed attempt at dating, than a hookup. Two people meet up for the purposes of a sexual encounter. They have a few drinks together, aren’t feeling it and go their separate ways without having sex. That sounds like a date. No other description fits, since they didn’t have sex. Two people meet up for a ”hookup”. It goes well, they repeat it. Two years later they are married with a kid on the way. Was there a point where it was a hookup and then it turned into serious dating? Maybe but where?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Tinder is explicitly a hookup app.
JohnFen 7y ago
> The headline is blatantly misleading What's misleading about it? Reading the article, the headline seems on point.
- jariel 7y ago
  I think the headline is misleading because it's wrong to suggest that FB is banning dating apps that compete with its service. FB is banning dating apps that don't adhere to its public guidelines, which is a different thing altogether. We can disagree with said guidelines, but they are at least objective. The headline conflates the issue on purpose, i.e. to drive popular support for ostensible the anti-competitive action of Facebook, when really what they're objecting to is the nature of the policy that doesn't allow their dating app. It's definitely misleading.

by jariel 7y ago

kennywinker 7y ago

I'm pretty sure Tinder would not have a problem advertising in the NY Times. There are plenty of people on Tinder explicitly seeking hookups, open relationships, or group sex.

jariel 7y ago
Tinder is a dating app, like other dating apps, can be possibly be used for hookups etc. but it's not directly advertised as such. A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation. But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved by any of those orgs. Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal' though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.
- lozaning 7y ago
  As far as I can recall, when Tinder first came out it most certainly was explicitly for hookups and casual sex.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  I pretty much reject your false dichotomy of dating vs hookup apps. The difference between a date and a hookup is what exactly? But even if we let that stand - the app in the article that was turned down is called #Open and it's very much a dating app like tinder/bumble/hinge not a hookup app (https://www.hashtagopen.com https://www.hashtagopen.com) - it just has a bunch of features focussed on non-standard relationship models (polyamory, open relationships). The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a scam (https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-m...), so I have no problem with it being banned.
  - jariel 7y ago
    If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you, there's no point in my commenting on that. As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' - which is definitely different, but an often overlapping category. For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large audience to not have this included. Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of people within the Western World. FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'. If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very well within reason. So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      > If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating' then I'm sorry for you I’m sorry but you can’t brush the point off that easily. The difference between a date and a hookup is BS. Hookup is just a judgmental description of a short sexual relationship. E.g. Two people go on a ”date”. They have sex. They never see eachother again. Hookup, right? Except maybe they both are seeking a long term relationship, but due to sexual incompatibility or random life events they don’t end up seeing each other again. Now it seems more like a failed attempt at dating, than a hookup. Two people meet up for the purposes of a sexual encounter. They have a few drinks together, aren’t feeling it and go their separate ways without having sex. That sounds like a date. No other description fits, since they didn’t have sex. Two people meet up for a ”hookup”. It goes well, they repeat it. Two years later they are married with a kid on the way. Was there a point where it was a hookup and then it turned into serious dating? Maybe but where?
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Tinder is explicitly a hookup app.

JohnFen 7y ago

> The headline is blatantly misleading What's misleading about it? Reading the article, the headline seems on point.

jariel 7y ago
I think the headline is misleading because it's wrong to suggest that FB is banning dating apps that compete with its service. FB is banning dating apps that don't adhere to its public guidelines, which is a different thing altogether. We can disagree with said guidelines, but they are at least objective. The headline conflates the issue on purpose, i.e. to drive popular support for ostensible the anti-competitive action of Facebook, when really what they're objecting to is the nature of the policy that doesn't allow their dating app. It's definitely misleading.