5 ms·

Tinder turns 10: what have we learned from a decade of dating apps?

23 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

yosito 4y ago
The thing that I've learned is that dating apps are nothing more than casino games. Lots of colorful flashy buttons that you pay to frantically click on hoping to get lucky, even though you know the system was engineered to keep you pushing buttons and spending money. I'd say the market is ripe for disruption, but in terms of profit potential, the casino games are probably going to be the winning model for awhile. I have some friends who started a relatively niche dating app that is genuinely focused on connecting people, without games of luck, and though the app itself is not really a 5-star app in terms of design and development (don't tell them I said that), the fact that it's genuinely focused on connecting people has made it my preferred app in my very small dating niche. I'm not really sure if the same is possible on a mainstream scale.
- e12e 4y ago
  > preferred app in my very small dating niche Curious about how you define this, and which apo, unless you feel you cannot comment without providing/implying sensitive information about yourself.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  I’d be curious if it matches my niche. I’m Childfree and it’s difficult to find matches in general for this reason.
- dwighttk 4y ago
  I used Hinge for a while and it seems to be balanced such that a free user can actually get dates. It isn’t perfect, but I actually got 4 first dates and chatted with a few other genuine people, whereas on other apps like tinder I gave up more quickly because it was clear that I was gonna need to pay to actually match with a person. (Possibly I would actually match for free if I had looks that were driving more engagement)
  - lake_vincent 4y ago
    Yup, can confirm Hinge free is rather excellent. YMMV, but I got plenty of dates (and even a girlfriend for a while) thanks to Hinge. It's not perfect, but if you work it, it can work for you. Yes, it's a casino game, but learn the rules and you might just win ;)
  - crawl_soever 4y ago
    I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I find the hinge system bleak too. I've been on there a year and somewhat rarely get people to respond after a initial "match" let alone only managing to meet 2 people in real life. I say it is bleak for sure unless you're a swimsuit model
    - dwighttk 4y ago
      Yeah I have a friend who I think of as at least tier above me looks-wise and she said she didn’t get any matches at all… so I dunno. (She didn’t clarify… it may have been she didn’t get any matches that she would consider)
    - z3c0 4y ago
      Hinge has been sucked up into the Match.com umbrella. I haven't used it lately, but I wouldn't expect it to hold up to its past success stories anymore.
      - dwighttk 4y ago
        I used it entirely during the time it was owned by Match.com It may degrade from here but they didn’t immediately mess it up.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  I used OkCupid back when OkStats (their statistics blog) still existed (and found my wife, though the 9000 km distance made things harder). But what I quickly realized, was that by simply not being an asshole, you’d get great response rates. I’d always see "responds rarely" and then get quick responses almost every time. I was an overweight student. When asked, they usually said that most people don’t even give the impression of having read the profile before sending a message. I wonder if there is still a dating site nowadays that values depth over swiping pictures left/right (I never used Tinder, didn’t even know people used it for dating instead of hookups until a few years ago), from what I’ve heard OKC went further down the instant gratification route as well.
  - dijit 4y ago
    I have also had better luck by reading and referencing OkCupid profiles. My last relationship lasted 7 years, so it wasn't a terrible match. Going back to look at it though: I put a lot of effort into my messages, maybe 2-3 per day because each message took about 20-30 minutes to craft; but my response rate was about 1:10 and my date rate was ~about 1:100. Maybe one date every 2-3 months is so few that you put a lot of effort into each one and then, likely, come across as desperate, even if you click.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      Might be a cultural thing, but those numbers all seem high to me. I spent less time on fewer messages and zero dates (but then for me, a date is only a tiny step away from a steady relationship) ;)
radiojasper 4y ago
Think about it: If a dating app would've worked perfectly, they had no customers. They would "just" match one half to the world to the other and done. But since we're such complicated creatures, this app is still thriving.
- isaacfrond 4y ago
  I thank my lucky stars that I have no need of dating apps. But, were the star's alignment ever to change, I'm guessing that you'd be best of with a paid-for, 'serious', app like eHarmony, or OKCupid, right?
  - indigochill 4y ago
    I've had mixed experiences with OKC. On one hand it got me a handful of dates while I was looking locally in the states. On the other hand, I moved to Iceland and their international search options go from "Everyone within 500 miles" to "The entire world, with no ability to filter by country" and those options just don't work in Iceland (unless you match with someone in Reykjavik, maybe). TBF, I did still connect with a couple people even with those options, but that's more because I pulled the slot machine lever enough than a credit to them. I wish they had better international options, even if they were locked behind the paid tier. IIRC eHarmony didn't work either because it didn't even acknowledge Iceland as a place you could be, so I guess OKC has that leg up on them at least.
    - karatinversion 4y ago
      I’m curious what you think a good behaviour would have been? I’ve never used dating apps, but it seems to me that once you move to an island with the population of Cleveland, Ohio, your dating pool is limited to that island…
      - indigochill 4y ago
        Mostly yes, but my two most successful dating relationships (both met on OKC!) while on said island were long-distance. So not exclusively. Mostly I'd like the ability to signal to the algorithm "I'm willing to consider relocating to these particular places if I meet someone who lives there."
shin_lao 4y ago
A great dating app logic would be to limit the number of matches you have, forcing you to unmatch when you reach your limit. That would make users match more carefully and actually engage (or not) with existing matches. Would also make the pool healthier.
- brongondwana 4y ago
  Not really, you'd just encourage people to convert to a secondary chat channel (whatsapp, snapchat, text, whatever is popular locally) and then drop their match on the app.
  - eggsmediumrare 4y ago
    This would be fine, at least there's a conversation happening then.
mdorazio 4y ago
One thing I don't think gets enough discussion is how bad apps like Tinder are for men's sense of self-worth. The larger percentage of men on these apps combined with the fast swipe setup turns it into a complete meat market where a lot of men can very quickly think that women don't want them.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  This is actually an issue on both sides of the power law: you might feel terrible from having zero matches, but it might also not be entirely healthy for you to be part of the group of men who have all the matches.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  I've seen some people claiming that Tinder's userbase is 90% men, 10% women.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    Most (any?) women can get a date by opening Tinder twice, so I guess that distribution is about steady state. More interesting data would be gender ratio on former Tinder users. Or like users over a year.
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago
  This combined with the fact that women rate the average man way below average and the average man rates women normally. https://mobile.twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1053677226003234817?lang=he https://mobile.twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1053677226003...
  - z3c0 4y ago
    The actual link, for anybody who doesn't consider Twitter a good source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcup...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
isthisthingon99 4y ago
I think people are very slowly coming to the realization that all the free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better, and after all, for the most part that is our biological drive. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction, it will be on them to change course. After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway.
- archagon 4y ago
  > After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway. Wat? I guess things like, I dunno, personality don’t matter for mate selection in your view…?
  - poszlem 4y ago
    It's not "in OP's view". We know that _on average(!)_ they don't really matter that much. What matters _on average(!)_ is power, position, and success. Even in this thread someone already posted how differently women and men rate each other.
  - isthisthingon99 4y ago
    The context is dating apps. I personally pick up women at dog parks :-)
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Women can tell you think this way about women.
  - dijit 4y ago
    You can read the parent comment more charitably. > free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better Both men and women are propagating this culture of free-love, but it's potentially unfulfilling and leaves people believing their prospects are better than they really are. A woman will sleep with a handsome chiseled burger flipper who doesn't want kids or responsibility; but will that same woman want to marry them? > it will be on [Women] to change course. The parent states that the power is mostly on the side of Women here, the parent is just saying that change will not come from Men. Because after all; if all Men did what is within their power: then not very much would actually change; Women drive what is acceptable.
harryf 4y ago
Match.com (who own Tinder among others) just got a new CEO who used to be the CEO of Zynga (FarmVille etc) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/03/match-names-zynga-president-bernard-kim-as-ceo-replacing-shar-dubey/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/03/match-names-zynga-presiden... And Match.com owns 40%+ of the dating market. I find myself asking “what does this mean for the future of the human race?”
- shantnutiwari 4y ago
  The "human race" will be fine-- the problem will be a small subset of people(mostly men, but some women too) who will struggle to get into relationships.
  - devonkim 4y ago
    Thought there always have been a subset throughout history. The issue nowadays is about social pressures and perceived lack of a more fair market whomever the participant may be.
  - seper8 4y ago
    >small subset of people Growing every year... Take a look at Japan, I guess thats where the rest of the western world is headed. 25% of men aged 40 and below are virgins. Fear the men with nothing to lose
    - samoa42 4y ago
      virgins do still have their virginity to loose, don't they?
  - sebastianconcpt 4y ago
    Small set > 98%
- pnf 4y ago
  The future of the human race looks more and more like test tube babies genetically engineered for socially productive and harmonious dispositions, robosexuality the norm for non-elites and non-untouchables. Aggressive reproduction management of the underclass. Surrogate live births for those who can afford it. A small fringe of communities akin to the Amish who practice traditional human reproduction. Just follow the trend lines to the horizon and you'll see it.
analyst74 4y ago
Prevalence of dating apps also generated unprecedented amount of data that revealed people's dating habits and preferences.
Sytten 4y ago
The financial incentives of dating apps are just bad. To make money you have to keep your (male) users on the platform and make them desperate enough so they pay. This is contrary to their mission statement and I can't see how people working on these apps aren't cynical. I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either as most matches are of poor quality and won't result on anything serious. I once tried the "friend" feature of Bumble and I got so many matches that I gave up. I feel the market is ready for something else, but it would need to come from a non profit for it to not repeat the same mistakes.
- vocram 4y ago
  > I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either It’s great for users looking for ego boosting via popularity and vanity metrics.
pnf 4y ago
What's wrong with meeting people IRL? Does that just not happen anymore? It used to be that friends would hook their friends up. Or you'd meet someone at school or through work. Is that no longer the case? The impression I've gotten about modern dating (other than the terribly misguided sexual libertinism) is how lonely it all sounds. Plus, the whole shitting on marriage (and the families those marriages produce) that permeates the background assumptions of people like on this pod is like a superhighway to future unhappy bitterness for women (and men) who while away their reproductive years. Apps like Tinder are obviously dystopian but even the "deeper" dating apps are kind of fucked up and vampiric. They assume the centrality of the self and prioritize self-fulfillment through finding optimally compatible mates. Good lord. There have been many happy marriages, but very few compatible ones. algorithmically optimizing for compatibility rather than complementarity and, frankly, productive discord (tending to future growth and harmony) is existentially suicidal for the individual and the species. That's not to even go into the problems they create by aggressively imbalancing the distribution of sexual partners by tilting the playing field towards the high status male "players" and disenfranchising average males, thereby widening the sexual inequality gap. These are societally evil platforms. And where are all the happy lifelong commitments? The good outcomes? Divorce rates for couples who met through dating apps are supposedly 5x those who met through friends. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their algorithms. Marriage is so much more of a contribution to the social fabric than is pursuing personal sexual experience. No wonder these threads trace back to the Free Love movement. Slouching towards Bethlehem indeed.
- spicyusername 4y ago
  > What's wrong with meeting people IRL? I think many of the institutions that support meaningfully connecting with strangers in person are in decline. Some of them are being out competed by isolating activities, like screens. Some of them are being recognized as philosophically unsound, like church.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
spookierookie 4y ago
what have we learned from a decade of dating apps? Basically to not use them. Same thing we learned with a lot of other "social" services.
technonerd 4y ago
The past 3 times I have tried to use tinder, I was left thinking it's just a front for onlyfans, sex workers and scammers. Profiles would either have 'onlyfans $name' or 'of $name' or 'I don't use this app much here's my Instagram'. But when you opened up their insta profile first line in their about me section was a onlyfans link. Sprinkle in some gift card scammers, sex workers, not being good looking and huge anxiety problems and I was left disappointed and frustrated every time. If I reported profiles it would just show them later on and not block them. So I would always report them again and again. I would always play along with the scammers. Mostly out of curiosity and bordem. I would practice my osint skills. And try to report domains for abuse.
davewritescode 4y ago
If you're a man, aren't ridiculously wealthy and/or good looking and you're still using dating apps you're an idiot or lazy. Dating apps basically force men and women to make decisions on very superficial criteria. It's why the whole "I won't date men under 6 feet tall" thing started. Since women seem to have the problem of too many matches more than men do, they're the ones who get to invent the criteria. There's so much more to attraction than pictures and a brief bio.

23 points by isaacfrond 4y ago

The thing that I've learned is that dating apps are nothing more than casino games. Lots of colorful flashy buttons that you pay to frantically click on hoping to get lucky, even though you know the system was engineered to keep you pushing buttons and spending money. I'd say the market is ripe for disruption, but in terms of profit potential, the casino games are probably going to be the winning model for awhile. I have some friends who started a relatively niche dating app that is genuinely focused on connecting people, without games of luck, and though the app itself is not really a 5-star app in terms of design and development (don't tell them I said that), the fact that it's genuinely focused on connecting people has made it my preferred app in my very small dating niche. I'm not really sure if the same is possible on a mainstream scale.

e12e 4y ago
> preferred app in my very small dating niche Curious about how you define this, and which apo, unless you feel you cannot comment without providing/implying sensitive information about yourself.
unsupp0rted 4y ago
I’d be curious if it matches my niche. I’m Childfree and it’s difficult to find matches in general for this reason.
dwighttk 4y ago
I used Hinge for a while and it seems to be balanced such that a free user can actually get dates. It isn’t perfect, but I actually got 4 first dates and chatted with a few other genuine people, whereas on other apps like tinder I gave up more quickly because it was clear that I was gonna need to pay to actually match with a person. (Possibly I would actually match for free if I had looks that were driving more engagement)
- lake_vincent 4y ago
  Yup, can confirm Hinge free is rather excellent. YMMV, but I got plenty of dates (and even a girlfriend for a while) thanks to Hinge. It's not perfect, but if you work it, it can work for you. Yes, it's a casino game, but learn the rules and you might just win ;)
- crawl_soever 4y ago
  I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I find the hinge system bleak too. I've been on there a year and somewhat rarely get people to respond after a initial "match" let alone only managing to meet 2 people in real life. I say it is bleak for sure unless you're a swimsuit model
  - dwighttk 4y ago
    Yeah I have a friend who I think of as at least tier above me looks-wise and she said she didn’t get any matches at all… so I dunno. (She didn’t clarify… it may have been she didn’t get any matches that she would consider)
  - z3c0 4y ago
    Hinge has been sucked up into the Match.com umbrella. I haven't used it lately, but I wouldn't expect it to hold up to its past success stories anymore.
    - dwighttk 4y ago
      I used it entirely during the time it was owned by Match.com It may degrade from here but they didn’t immediately mess it up.
Semaphor 4y ago
I used OkCupid back when OkStats (their statistics blog) still existed (and found my wife, though the 9000 km distance made things harder). But what I quickly realized, was that by simply not being an asshole, you’d get great response rates. I’d always see "responds rarely" and then get quick responses almost every time. I was an overweight student. When asked, they usually said that most people don’t even give the impression of having read the profile before sending a message. I wonder if there is still a dating site nowadays that values depth over swiping pictures left/right (I never used Tinder, didn’t even know people used it for dating instead of hookups until a few years ago), from what I’ve heard OKC went further down the instant gratification route as well.
- dijit 4y ago
  I have also had better luck by reading and referencing OkCupid profiles. My last relationship lasted 7 years, so it wasn't a terrible match. Going back to look at it though: I put a lot of effort into my messages, maybe 2-3 per day because each message took about 20-30 minutes to craft; but my response rate was about 1:10 and my date rate was ~about 1:100. Maybe one date every 2-3 months is so few that you put a lot of effort into each one and then, likely, come across as desperate, even if you click.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Might be a cultural thing, but those numbers all seem high to me. I spent less time on fewer messages and zero dates (but then for me, a date is only a tiny step away from a steady relationship) ;)

radiojasper 4y ago

Think about it: If a dating app would've worked perfectly, they had no customers. They would "just" match one half to the world to the other and done. But since we're such complicated creatures, this app is still thriving.

isaacfrond 4y ago
I thank my lucky stars that I have no need of dating apps. But, were the star's alignment ever to change, I'm guessing that you'd be best of with a paid-for, 'serious', app like eHarmony, or OKCupid, right?
- indigochill 4y ago
  I've had mixed experiences with OKC. On one hand it got me a handful of dates while I was looking locally in the states. On the other hand, I moved to Iceland and their international search options go from "Everyone within 500 miles" to "The entire world, with no ability to filter by country" and those options just don't work in Iceland (unless you match with someone in Reykjavik, maybe). TBF, I did still connect with a couple people even with those options, but that's more because I pulled the slot machine lever enough than a credit to them. I wish they had better international options, even if they were locked behind the paid tier. IIRC eHarmony didn't work either because it didn't even acknowledge Iceland as a place you could be, so I guess OKC has that leg up on them at least.
  - karatinversion 4y ago
    I’m curious what you think a good behaviour would have been? I’ve never used dating apps, but it seems to me that once you move to an island with the population of Cleveland, Ohio, your dating pool is limited to that island…
    - indigochill 4y ago
      Mostly yes, but my two most successful dating relationships (both met on OKC!) while on said island were long-distance. So not exclusively. Mostly I'd like the ability to signal to the algorithm "I'm willing to consider relocating to these particular places if I meet someone who lives there."

shin_lao 4y ago

A great dating app logic would be to limit the number of matches you have, forcing you to unmatch when you reach your limit. That would make users match more carefully and actually engage (or not) with existing matches. Would also make the pool healthier.

brongondwana 4y ago
Not really, you'd just encourage people to convert to a secondary chat channel (whatsapp, snapchat, text, whatever is popular locally) and then drop their match on the app.
- eggsmediumrare 4y ago
  This would be fine, at least there's a conversation happening then.

mdorazio 4y ago

One thing I don't think gets enough discussion is how bad apps like Tinder are for men's sense of self-worth. The larger percentage of men on these apps combined with the fast swipe setup turns it into a complete meat market where a lot of men can very quickly think that women don't want them.

lordnacho 4y ago
This is actually an issue on both sides of the power law: you might feel terrible from having zero matches, but it might also not be entirely healthy for you to be part of the group of men who have all the matches.
crooked-v 4y ago
I've seen some people claiming that Tinder's userbase is 90% men, 10% women.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Most (any?) women can get a date by opening Tinder twice, so I guess that distribution is about steady state. More interesting data would be gender ratio on former Tinder users. Or like users over a year.
Traubenfuchs 4y ago
This combined with the fact that women rate the average man way below average and the average man rates women normally. https://mobile.twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1053677226003234817?lang=he https://mobile.twitter.com/stevestuwill/status/1053677226003...
- z3c0 4y ago
  The actual link, for anybody who doesn't consider Twitter a good source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcup...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

isthisthingon99 4y ago

I think people are very slowly coming to the realization that all the free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better, and after all, for the most part that is our biological drive. Women are the gatekeepers to reproduction, it will be on them to change course. After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway.

archagon 4y ago
> After all, if every man works out and makes great money, then they are all the same anyway. Wat? I guess things like, I dunno, personality don’t matter for mate selection in your view…?
- poszlem 4y ago
  It's not "in OP's view". We know that _on average(!)_ they don't really matter that much. What matters _on average(!)_ is power, position, and success. Even in this thread someone already posted how differently women and men rate each other.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  The context is dating apps. I personally pick up women at dog parks :-)
Zigurd 4y ago
Women can tell you think this way about women.
- dijit 4y ago
  You can read the parent comment more charitably. > free love stuff didn't really make their prospects of a good family better Both men and women are propagating this culture of free-love, but it's potentially unfulfilling and leaves people believing their prospects are better than they really are. A woman will sleep with a handsome chiseled burger flipper who doesn't want kids or responsibility; but will that same woman want to marry them? > it will be on [Women] to change course. The parent states that the power is mostly on the side of Women here, the parent is just saying that change will not come from Men. Because after all; if all Men did what is within their power: then not very much would actually change; Women drive what is acceptable.

harryf 4y ago

Match.com (who own Tinder among others) just got a new CEO who used to be the CEO of Zynga (FarmVille etc) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/03/match-names-zynga-president-bernard-kim-as-ceo-replacing-shar-dubey/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/03/match-names-zynga-presiden... And Match.com owns 40%+ of the dating market. I find myself asking “what does this mean for the future of the human race?”

shantnutiwari 4y ago
The "human race" will be fine-- the problem will be a small subset of people(mostly men, but some women too) who will struggle to get into relationships.
- devonkim 4y ago
  Thought there always have been a subset throughout history. The issue nowadays is about social pressures and perceived lack of a more fair market whomever the participant may be.
- seper8 4y ago
  >small subset of people Growing every year... Take a look at Japan, I guess thats where the rest of the western world is headed. 25% of men aged 40 and below are virgins. Fear the men with nothing to lose
  - samoa42 4y ago
    virgins do still have their virginity to loose, don't they?
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  Small set > 98%
pnf 4y ago
The future of the human race looks more and more like test tube babies genetically engineered for socially productive and harmonious dispositions, robosexuality the norm for non-elites and non-untouchables. Aggressive reproduction management of the underclass. Surrogate live births for those who can afford it. A small fringe of communities akin to the Amish who practice traditional human reproduction. Just follow the trend lines to the horizon and you'll see it.

analyst74 4y ago

Prevalence of dating apps also generated unprecedented amount of data that revealed people's dating habits and preferences.

Sytten 4y ago

The financial incentives of dating apps are just bad. To make money you have to keep your (male) users on the platform and make them desperate enough so they pay. This is contrary to their mission statement and I can't see how people working on these apps aren't cynical. I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either as most matches are of poor quality and won't result on anything serious. I once tried the "friend" feature of Bumble and I got so many matches that I gave up. I feel the market is ready for something else, but it would need to come from a non profit for it to not repeat the same mistakes.

vocram 4y ago
> I don't think it is super great for the receivers of those likes either It’s great for users looking for ego boosting via popularity and vanity metrics.

pnf 4y ago

What's wrong with meeting people IRL? Does that just not happen anymore? It used to be that friends would hook their friends up. Or you'd meet someone at school or through work. Is that no longer the case? The impression I've gotten about modern dating (other than the terribly misguided sexual libertinism) is how lonely it all sounds. Plus, the whole shitting on marriage (and the families those marriages produce) that permeates the background assumptions of people like on this pod is like a superhighway to future unhappy bitterness for women (and men) who while away their reproductive years. Apps like Tinder are obviously dystopian but even the "deeper" dating apps are kind of fucked up and vampiric. They assume the centrality of the self and prioritize self-fulfillment through finding optimally compatible mates. Good lord. There have been many happy marriages, but very few compatible ones. algorithmically optimizing for compatibility rather than complementarity and, frankly, productive discord (tending to future growth and harmony) is existentially suicidal for the individual and the species. That's not to even go into the problems they create by aggressively imbalancing the distribution of sexual partners by tilting the playing field towards the high status male "players" and disenfranchising average males, thereby widening the sexual inequality gap. These are societally evil platforms. And where are all the happy lifelong commitments? The good outcomes? Divorce rates for couples who met through dating apps are supposedly 5x those who met through friends. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of their algorithms. Marriage is so much more of a contribution to the social fabric than is pursuing personal sexual experience. No wonder these threads trace back to the Free Love movement. Slouching towards Bethlehem indeed.

spicyusername 4y ago
> What's wrong with meeting people IRL? I think many of the institutions that support meaningfully connecting with strangers in person are in decline. Some of them are being out competed by isolating activities, like screens. Some of them are being recognized as philosophically unsound, like church.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

spookierookie 4y ago

what have we learned from a decade of dating apps? Basically to not use them. Same thing we learned with a lot of other "social" services.

technonerd 4y ago

The past 3 times I have tried to use tinder, I was left thinking it's just a front for onlyfans, sex workers and scammers. Profiles would either have 'onlyfans $name' or 'of $name' or 'I don't use this app much here's my Instagram'. But when you opened up their insta profile first line in their about me section was a onlyfans link. Sprinkle in some gift card scammers, sex workers, not being good looking and huge anxiety problems and I was left disappointed and frustrated every time. If I reported profiles it would just show them later on and not block them. So I would always report them again and again. I would always play along with the scammers. Mostly out of curiosity and bordem. I would practice my osint skills. And try to report domains for abuse.

davewritescode 4y ago

If you're a man, aren't ridiculously wealthy and/or good looking and you're still using dating apps you're an idiot or lazy. Dating apps basically force men and women to make decisions on very superficial criteria. It's why the whole "I won't date men under 6 feet tall" thing started. Since women seem to have the problem of too many matches more than men do, they're the ones who get to invent the criteria. There's so much more to attraction than pictures and a brief bio.