3 ms·
It really doesnt have anything to do with a loneliness epidemic. There wasn’t enough value in the basic chat bots, the idiots using the site considered that ba
by afavour 2y ago
It really doesnt have anything to do with a loneliness epidemic.
There wasn’t enough value in the basic chat bots, the idiots using the site considered that basic chat as a prelude to IRL sex with a real woman, a goal tempting enough to presumably blinker them to how basic the chat was. All of which is to say: no value, 100% scam.
- delichon 2y agoIn other words, the same value as porn or romance novels, just without knowing it. But those things do have value given that people pay for them knowingly.
- Sander_Marechal 2y agoYes, but porn and romance novel buyers know what they pay for. The AM users did not.
- jollyllama 2y agoNo. Did you read the GP? When you buy a romance novel, you don't think a real life person is going to come out of it and romance you. It's a transparent fiction.
- afavour 2y ago> the same value as porn or romance novels, just without knowing it It’s the “just without knowing it” part that makes it the scam.
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoBut a low effort scam, back then chat gpt was not a thing. They could at least connect the user among each other, censor/cutting conversations as soon as they reveal ones gender .. basically grindr, but with a scam on top.
- _yb2s 2y agoThis would be more obviously fake than a chatbot: the way women respond on dating apps is very different from the way men do, and would be noticeable instantly, whereas a few scripted chat bot lines may not be.
- itronitron 2y agopresumably if the chat bot was too erudite that would be off-putting to the man
- _yb2s 2y agoA low effort chatbot is an accurate representation of the type of responses most men are used to from women on dating sites. This is not a misogynistic comment or snark, but a result of the fact that women tend to have a large number of people messaging them.
- afavour 2y agoYou may well be correct but I don’t think it’s that relevant here. Dating sites were much less prevalent when AM was at its peak and presumably the average user married (and left the dating pool) years before that peak, even. I just don’t buy that there were that many AM users thinking “this checks out with my prior experience in dating sites so it’s plausible”. They just weren’t thinking critically at all.
- _yb2s 2y agoI disagree- it will also check out with their real world experience. Most men are used to women being cagey, aloof, and showing low interest in real life. They will assume they either need to try harder to interest her, or that she is playing “hard to get.”
- afavour 2y agoYour precious comment might not have been misogynistic but you’re rapidly approaching it here. As a man I can’t say I am “used to women being cagey and aloof”. There are plenty of cagey and aloof people out there in the world, I don’t see anything gender specific about it.
- _yb2s 2y agoJust like above, this is not a negative statement about women but about understanding how their experience is different. Women are used to being approached and pursued by men that they usually aren’t interested in, and might even be dangerous. A positive response would invite more unwanted attention. An attractive women in a crowded public space is often experiencing men trying to initiate some type of interaction (often aggressively so) every few minutes. Men’s experience with women also varies a lot depending on how they look, and their social skills among other things.