2 ms·
This is a wild read cause I was discussing this just last night with some people at a bar! We had a never-ending conversation of "if we have kinda non-profit Wi
by kredd 3y ago
This is a wild read cause I was discussing this just last night with some people at a bar! We had a never-ending conversation of "if we have kinda non-profit Wikipedia for information democratization, we should have non-profit for dating". Then more into "who would be determining the rules, how we can make it less skewed for one sex or the other, how would we deal with liability, what do we do with spam, how to ID verify to minimize catfishing" and etc.
One thing that's a bit hard though, how would we minimize the whole "numbers game" that's basically the main part of the apps. Guys try to get as many matches possible, girls try to find the "best match" out of "matches", so you still have the whole problem of unmatched men and women. But I guess, that comes after figuring out how the non-profit would work.
- Sytten 3y agoSee my other comment, I thought about a multi-step process. Basically forcing slow dating in the app. The guys trying to have too many matches is easy to fix IMO, you basically limit the likes. The feeling you could have "better" for women comes from the fast that you see too many profiles ("what if the next one is better?") and receiving too many likes. That is harder to fix, but I think not showing an infinite queue of people that liked you is a first step. My proposed process solves both issue, basically you recreate the real-world limits of the number of people you can realistically meet BUT you increase the likelihood of a match by doing a machine filter based on your preferences.