4 ms·

> All my american friends balk at this. But as a swede, I dont think it is completely impossible. (as an American, balking at this): The American government is

> All my american friends balk at this. But as a swede, I dont think it is completely impossible. (as an American, balking at this): The American government is too irresponsible and corrupt to ever handle something like this -- it would get abused so quickly, and thus, no regular person would trust it. Having a single dating app/profile as a free public service is a good idea in theory, but the pre-requisite of having a "functioning, selfless, responsible government, invested only in the public good" is just not a thing we're gonna get here.

alistairSH 3y ago
And yet the government mostly does what we ask of it. USPS gets mail to the most remote locations for the price of a stamp. State and the military both protect our interests overseas (for better or worse). Healthcare.gov works pretty well (after that rocky rollout). It's far from perfect, but I don't feel like it's any more dysfunctional than any other western democracy.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  It’s less dysfunctional than most organizations 1/10th its size.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    having worked at, or consulted at, several F500 orgs... I believe it. most could be politely described as "basket cases" or "cluster hugs" (hugs being the operative word). but they had so much inertia and so many assets that were effective on ground they couldn't be stopped. anything outside of core business drivers were a mess, but they could still make in rain in their core competencies. the level of corruption was also shocking. CTOs packing the PMO and Procurement teams to approve contracts, including 400k consulting fees to a company, only a few months old, and owned 100% by the CTOs wife. Sales Engineers offering "acquisition fees" for going with their SaaS offering. People fighting to get to be the gatekeepers for new RFPs so they could milk the baksheesh.
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      Right and if you wanted to make money by being immoral, you’d have a lot better odds of success, and probably both less chance of being caught and less penalty, if you did, in the private sector. A senator gets paid a tiny percent of what a c-suite exec does and there are much fewer of them. I know all sorts of small business owners who make more money than POTUS (though I suppose much fewer if you count speaking fees after retirement) or anyone in Congress. Etc. I mean there’s corruption and graft and stuff, and plenty of waste, but for its size, I think our government is wonderful. The more I learn about other ones the more positively I feel about ours. And here’s a way I like to think about things when there are big topics that are confusing. I ask “if you were wrong, would you still think you were right?” I often ask friends if Bing were better than Google (which I’ve never met anyone who thinks it is) would they know it? They say yes but then I ask them the last time they tried switching, or even know someone who did, and they realize that even if Bing was 20% better than Google they would still think it isn’t. I think it’s the same with government. If ours were better than every other one in the world we’d mostly still think it wasn’t by sheer inertia and the marketing done by politicians to convince us it isn’t. Im sure it isn’t the best in the world, but I think all the better ones are smaller wealthier countries that just have a much easier job.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > And yet the government mostly does what we ask of it. That's the problem, though. What we ask of a dating app is roughly "Give me access to partners that are 'out of my league'." It might work for some people sometimes, but it's not satisfiable in any meaningful way. It's like asking the government to "Make me rich" – something we do ask of the government! It does what it can, giving some people the opportunity to become rich sometimes, but it's not meaningfully satisfiable either. And that is where the ideas of corruption and irresponsibility come into play. "He got rich. I didn't. The government must favor him!" Few want a dating app for "healthy relationships". One only has to step outside in a reasonably populous area to find all kinds of healthy relationship opportunities staring them right in the face. But that's not what people, generally speaking, are looking for.
  - whstl 3y ago
    > What we ask of a dating app is roughly "Give me access to partners that are 'out of my league'." I don't really believe this is what we ask of apps. It is however what that the current apps promise us. If I install one of those apps, I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. If I were single, I would probably be ok with the first 50 that show up if they weren't bots or onlyfans bait.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Apps only get used if they deliver what people want. Apps promise that because that's what people want. (There are always exceptions) > I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. Right. If you were after an average woman (and an average woman was after you, we'll say someone also average), there would be no value proposition in swiping endlessly to find each other. You could both just step outside. There are average people abound. But the likelihood is that at least one of you, if not both, seek someone who is more than average. A connection isn't being made outside because either one or both parties is saying, implicitly or explicitly, "No thanks." And fair enough. If you think you can have something that you perceive as being better, why wouldn't you try to go for it? (Exceptions notwithstanding)
mattmaroon 3y ago
That’s just marketing by politicians trying to get elected. “Our government sucks, pick me and I’ll fix it” has been every politicians message since Reagan. It isn’t real. For an organization that size, it functions incredibly well in most respects. Nobody would claim it to be perfect (and you’re probably right that nobody would trust it even if it were, because so many have accepted that marketing) but it could handle simple tasks like a dating app. It maybe shouldn’t. But I don’t think corruption is or in this case would be a real issue.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  It maybe shouldn’t. But I don’t think corruption is or in this case would be a real issue. I'd be more concerned about aligned incentives. A (modern, democratic) government exists to help maximize the social welfare of the governed. Is there enough societal gain to be had by entrusting mate-matching to the government? And are those gains in sync with the goals of the individuals? Fictional example: In a politically polarized society, there might be a benefit to matching extremists with either moderates or extremists from the other end of the political spectrum. Another: In order to bring economic balance, the government might decide to match the wealthy with the working class.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Well, a lot of people are concerned about the low birth rate, and a good online dating app might be helpful. And a not-for-profit model might actually be the best way to accomplish that. I am neither sure that the common claim of why online dating is broken is true, nor that a government-run app is a good idea. Im just sure the “our government is incompetent and corrupt” argument is drastically oversubscribed to. You know what government is 100 times as corrupt and incompetent as ours? Cuba. And they make some of the finest cigars and rum in the world. Surely ours could come up with something better than Tinder.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I get the impression the birth rate is a function of cost, not opportunity. Sample bias ahead: My friends are mostly married. Those that have zero or one child did so because of the cost (both in real dollars, opportunity cost, and general pain-in-the-ass of raising children in the US today), not the inability to find a suitable mate.
Yizahi 3y ago
Would a single government (for example USA) operating such service be better on average than a single megacorp (for example Match.com)? I think corporate overreach in the democracy is way bigger than government overreach. At least in such simple and inconsequential case.
- whstl 3y ago
  The problem with Match.com seems to be the fact they do too much (algorithms). Something non-profit would be able to be better just by having less cash... The spam problem might be too much, sure, but that also happens in the big apps, so...

alistairSH 3y ago

And yet the government mostly does what we ask of it. USPS gets mail to the most remote locations for the price of a stamp. State and the military both protect our interests overseas (for better or worse). Healthcare.gov works pretty well (after that rocky rollout). It's far from perfect, but I don't feel like it's any more dysfunctional than any other western democracy.

mattmaroon 3y ago
It’s less dysfunctional than most organizations 1/10th its size.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  having worked at, or consulted at, several F500 orgs... I believe it. most could be politely described as "basket cases" or "cluster hugs" (hugs being the operative word). but they had so much inertia and so many assets that were effective on ground they couldn't be stopped. anything outside of core business drivers were a mess, but they could still make in rain in their core competencies. the level of corruption was also shocking. CTOs packing the PMO and Procurement teams to approve contracts, including 400k consulting fees to a company, only a few months old, and owned 100% by the CTOs wife. Sales Engineers offering "acquisition fees" for going with their SaaS offering. People fighting to get to be the gatekeepers for new RFPs so they could milk the baksheesh.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Right and if you wanted to make money by being immoral, you’d have a lot better odds of success, and probably both less chance of being caught and less penalty, if you did, in the private sector. A senator gets paid a tiny percent of what a c-suite exec does and there are much fewer of them. I know all sorts of small business owners who make more money than POTUS (though I suppose much fewer if you count speaking fees after retirement) or anyone in Congress. Etc. I mean there’s corruption and graft and stuff, and plenty of waste, but for its size, I think our government is wonderful. The more I learn about other ones the more positively I feel about ours. And here’s a way I like to think about things when there are big topics that are confusing. I ask “if you were wrong, would you still think you were right?” I often ask friends if Bing were better than Google (which I’ve never met anyone who thinks it is) would they know it? They say yes but then I ask them the last time they tried switching, or even know someone who did, and they realize that even if Bing was 20% better than Google they would still think it isn’t. I think it’s the same with government. If ours were better than every other one in the world we’d mostly still think it wasn’t by sheer inertia and the marketing done by politicians to convince us it isn’t. Im sure it isn’t the best in the world, but I think all the better ones are smaller wealthier countries that just have a much easier job.
randomdata 3y ago
> And yet the government mostly does what we ask of it. That's the problem, though. What we ask of a dating app is roughly "Give me access to partners that are 'out of my league'." It might work for some people sometimes, but it's not satisfiable in any meaningful way. It's like asking the government to "Make me rich" – something we do ask of the government! It does what it can, giving some people the opportunity to become rich sometimes, but it's not meaningfully satisfiable either. And that is where the ideas of corruption and irresponsibility come into play. "He got rich. I didn't. The government must favor him!" Few want a dating app for "healthy relationships". One only has to step outside in a reasonably populous area to find all kinds of healthy relationship opportunities staring them right in the face. But that's not what people, generally speaking, are looking for.
- whstl 3y ago
  > What we ask of a dating app is roughly "Give me access to partners that are 'out of my league'." I don't really believe this is what we ask of apps. It is however what that the current apps promise us. If I install one of those apps, I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. If I were single, I would probably be ok with the first 50 that show up if they weren't bots or onlyfans bait.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Apps only get used if they deliver what people want. Apps promise that because that's what people want. (There are always exceptions) > I need to swipe a lot of people to see an average woman. Right. If you were after an average woman (and an average woman was after you, we'll say someone also average), there would be no value proposition in swiping endlessly to find each other. You could both just step outside. There are average people abound. But the likelihood is that at least one of you, if not both, seek someone who is more than average. A connection isn't being made outside because either one or both parties is saying, implicitly or explicitly, "No thanks." And fair enough. If you think you can have something that you perceive as being better, why wouldn't you try to go for it? (Exceptions notwithstanding)

mattmaroon 3y ago

That’s just marketing by politicians trying to get elected. “Our government sucks, pick me and I’ll fix it” has been every politicians message since Reagan. It isn’t real. For an organization that size, it functions incredibly well in most respects. Nobody would claim it to be perfect (and you’re probably right that nobody would trust it even if it were, because so many have accepted that marketing) but it could handle simple tasks like a dating app. It maybe shouldn’t. But I don’t think corruption is or in this case would be a real issue.

alistairSH 3y ago
It maybe shouldn’t. But I don’t think corruption is or in this case would be a real issue. I'd be more concerned about aligned incentives. A (modern, democratic) government exists to help maximize the social welfare of the governed. Is there enough societal gain to be had by entrusting mate-matching to the government? And are those gains in sync with the goals of the individuals? Fictional example: In a politically polarized society, there might be a benefit to matching extremists with either moderates or extremists from the other end of the political spectrum. Another: In order to bring economic balance, the government might decide to match the wealthy with the working class.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Well, a lot of people are concerned about the low birth rate, and a good online dating app might be helpful. And a not-for-profit model might actually be the best way to accomplish that. I am neither sure that the common claim of why online dating is broken is true, nor that a government-run app is a good idea. Im just sure the “our government is incompetent and corrupt” argument is drastically oversubscribed to. You know what government is 100 times as corrupt and incompetent as ours? Cuba. And they make some of the finest cigars and rum in the world. Surely ours could come up with something better than Tinder.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    I get the impression the birth rate is a function of cost, not opportunity. Sample bias ahead: My friends are mostly married. Those that have zero or one child did so because of the cost (both in real dollars, opportunity cost, and general pain-in-the-ass of raising children in the US today), not the inability to find a suitable mate.

Yizahi 3y ago

Would a single government (for example USA) operating such service be better on average than a single megacorp (for example Match.com)? I think corporate overreach in the democracy is way bigger than government overreach. At least in such simple and inconsequential case.

whstl 3y ago
The problem with Match.com seems to be the fact they do too much (algorithms). Something non-profit would be able to be better just by having less cash... The spam problem might be too much, sure, but that also happens in the big apps, so...