15 ms·

> Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money Because its outside the scope & role of the government? > I really don't u

by Yoofie 4y ago

> Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money Because its outside the scope & role of the government? > I really don't understand how this stuff is still not regulated anywhere This is a common theme I see in alot of discussions about everything. Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruption"). Adding more rules wont solve anything. And plus, we have the rules. Match group, who basically own the entire western world online dating market, should have not been allowed to buy all their competitors in the first place. This is a failure of the regulating bodies to do anything and now the users end up paying the price.

googlryas 4y ago
> Because its outside the scope & role of the government Is it? Governments care very much about what their demographics will be in the future. Governments get involved in trying to modify birth rate. Hooking people up seems like an interesting idea, especially if the government thinks they're going to deal with massively bad demographic shift in the midterm future.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Yeah, tell the government of Japan that they shouldn't have been worried about young people dating for the last three decades.
mantas 4y ago
Different governments have widely different scopes & roles. It's up to society to decide what government shall do.
Double_a_92 4y ago
Future demographics are probably a pretty serious longterm issue..
seba_dos1 4y ago
It actually seems much more aligned with scope & role of the government than of any commercial entity.
ghusto 4y ago
> Because its outside the scope & role of the government? That doesn't align with the fact that there are government funded programmes for things like mental well being, sexual health and education, and even music appreciation. The government is concerned with whatever the heck we say it is. It's _our_ government. P.S. No, I don't live in America ;)
feoren 4y ago
> Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruption"). Adding more rules wont solve anything. This is such a weird take when you think about it. It's like saying "people can just run traffic lights; therefore, adding more traffic lights cannot prevent accidents." Okay, well, preventing people from running traffic lights is just a separate issue that should also be solved if it's a problem. The answer isn't to stop putting up traffic lights! And it doesn't follow that some people not following the rules means rules are worthless. Besides, different governments (and different agencies within governments) have vastly different levels of "teeth". I know it's easy to get jaded seeing all the regulatory capture in the U.S., but that's not the entire world. Even in the U.S. some regulations are rigorously enforced, e.g. FAA regulations.
- parineum 4y ago
  It's like saying, "Some people keep running this traffic light but we don't have any traffic cops. What if we lowered the speed limit so they wouldn't be going so fast when they run it?"
alfnor 4y ago
No, a country is nothing without its people.

by Yoofie 4y ago

googlryas 4y ago

> Because its outside the scope & role of the government Is it? Governments care very much about what their demographics will be in the future. Governments get involved in trying to modify birth rate. Hooking people up seems like an interesting idea, especially if the government thinks they're going to deal with massively bad demographic shift in the midterm future.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
Yeah, tell the government of Japan that they shouldn't have been worried about young people dating for the last three decades.

mantas 4y ago

Different governments have widely different scopes & roles. It's up to society to decide what government shall do.

Double_a_92 4y ago

Future demographics are probably a pretty serious longterm issue..

seba_dos1 4y ago

It actually seems much more aligned with scope & role of the government than of any commercial entity.

ghusto 4y ago

> Because its outside the scope & role of the government? That doesn't align with the fact that there are government funded programmes for things like mental well being, sexual health and education, and even music appreciation. The government is concerned with whatever the heck we say it is. It's _our_ government. P.S. No, I don't live in America ;)

feoren 4y ago

> Do not confuse regulation with enforcement. Any regulation that is not enforced is useless, or it is used selectively (a.k.a "corruption"). Adding more rules wont solve anything. This is such a weird take when you think about it. It's like saying "people can just run traffic lights; therefore, adding more traffic lights cannot prevent accidents." Okay, well, preventing people from running traffic lights is just a separate issue that should also be solved if it's a problem. The answer isn't to stop putting up traffic lights! And it doesn't follow that some people not following the rules means rules are worthless. Besides, different governments (and different agencies within governments) have vastly different levels of "teeth". I know it's easy to get jaded seeing all the regulatory capture in the U.S., but that's not the entire world. Even in the U.S. some regulations are rigorously enforced, e.g. FAA regulations.

parineum 4y ago
It's like saying, "Some people keep running this traffic light but we don't have any traffic cops. What if we lowered the speed limit so they wouldn't be going so fast when they run it?"

alfnor 4y ago

No, a country is nothing without its people.