4 ms·

I am more than a little discomfited by what the author seems to want here: - “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $10

by lsy 2y ago

I am more than a little discomfited by what the author seems to want here: - “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $100+/mo - Obtain potential match’s sexual history prior to conversation to use as a proxy for promiscuity - See all social media of potential matches - Ratings hit for people who decide not to meet with you after chatting - Interface for quantifying the multiple human beings you are talking to as “leads”, CRM style - Automated reverse image search / face recognition for social media - Random bonus: ability to filter Instagram messages by male/female?? Leaving aside the basic disrespect for the people on the other end of the chat here, who actually thinks women would participate on a platform where they are being cyberstalked by, and pressured into meeting with, desperate men who are tracking them in a spreadsheet?

amriksohata 2y ago
worrying. the data suggests 80% of the women are in contact with 20% of the men. so the weighting on these apps is not reflective of the real world.
- imtringued 2y ago
  There are four times more men than women on the apps. The moment a women sorts by almost any criteria, 80% of the men will be filtered out purely because of that.
- poloniculmov 2y ago
  what data? I've only heard this from the "manosphere".
  - Gigachad 2y ago
    OkCupid posted some stats in a blog post years ago which was pretty enlightening. They since deleted it, and I don’t think any dating company would dare make a similar post with the data they have these days.
ziggyzecat 2y ago
I had the same thought but a split second later I remembered why I'm sitting on the couch with a screen in front of my eyes on a freaking Sunday morning. There's probably something around two dozen better options where I could "speed date" (talk to/flirt with) a bunch of people who will share some space & time on a sunny Sunday morning. And since I know people with money, I know that "being able to afford xyz" doesn't mean shit. Even fuck you money doesn't. Sure, some "chicks" roll with it, but I never heard or read words from one of those chicks (traveling, Dubai, family, friends of friends in theater) that resonated with me or made me think: "potentially a good enough Mom." But then again, a 100 bucks isn't that much for a working, single dude. The need to know so much about a person before a date is just another sign of subliminal depression, mania and obsession. Maybe they should start putting dating profiles into captchas or something. Is this a human? Do you like her looks? Do you like her last tweet? No? Based on our data points, you should. Access denied. Let's try again. I recommend that "busy"-no-time-people find some way to prime their brain for exploration of humans and characters. Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding. How does it work? How does _she_ work?
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > And since I know people with money It's not about "rich people must be good" but rather "most poor people are bad"
  - ziggyzecat 2y ago
    > "most poor people are bad" That made me chuckle and reminded me of how the YouTube algorithm kept recommending that I watch 'Peter Singer - Ordinary People Are Evil for years. I still haven't watched it but life experience does tell a somewhat fitting story.
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  > Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding. That's an interesting pivot. With this mindset, how do you distinguish settling from a reasonable compromise?
throwaway290 2y ago
> “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $100+/mo Suppose you wouldn't need to pay more than $100 if you'd find your match and leave platform. Serious goal = serious price. Marriage will cost much more anyway. Marriage with a wrong person will cost 10x again.
- ziggyzecat 2y ago
  One can buy flowers, pay a cute kid to surprise a lady with them and point at you for a 100 bucks irl, and there's still enough for a drink or two. Hell, 100 bucks is enough for 1 more & refined attempt.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    For homo sapiens women make the mating decisions. Unless she immediately judges you as a good genetic fit, she will feel you're stalking her and call the police or something. (Yes, it's mostly genetics. Women have a gut feel for genetic fitness in mates.)
    - imtringued 2y ago
      If this is what it all boils down to then we should just skip all the bullshit and go straight to DNA sequencing and checking for autosomal recessive diseases and the possibility of genetic diseases for a given DNA pair.
      - ziggyzecat 2y ago
        sounds like Elisabeth Holmes pivot strategy but she didn't get to ^^
    - ziggyzecat 2y ago
      Yes they do, but - having fun, - needs, - desire to gratify received interest, - desire to return the favor of raising ones attractiveness, - desire to reward a diverse range of behaviors (some hard-coded into genes as well!) CAN & often will override anything "fitness", and much more often than not, not only temporary!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
big-green-man 2y ago
Women absolutely would participate on a platform that is free to use and has a high enough barrier to entry that they can select out all the scrubs and they can freely get what they're after without all the mess. Have you seen online dating today? It's a dumpster for both men and women. Men get a better shot at what they want for a higher fee, women get access to men they'd actually want to meet with. - men who can't afford that are already scratching the bottom of the barrel on dating sites and feeling like total losers because they have no prospects they're happy with - most people would show you a picture of their butthole as long as they knew it would be kept confidential if that meant they'd have a better shot at finding what they're after - information source aggregation, analogous to meeting people in more places than the singles bar - wasting peoples time is an undesirable trait - youre using an app to find sex and/or love, the interface changes nothing about this - the last two are the same as number 2, just analytics for the algorithm. When you're designing an algorithmic solution to mate pairing, you have to treat it like a meat market and gamify it for best results. And the current incumbents are absolutely doing that, it's just that their interests do not align with their users.
- xnickb 2y ago
  Do you have any supporting arguments for your claims?
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    Are you serious? Have you used an online dating app in the last decade? Do you know any men or women who have? Do you want me to link a source for "wasting people's time is an undesirable trait"? What sort of supporting arguments do you need?

by lsy 2y ago

amriksohata 2y ago

worrying. the data suggests 80% of the women are in contact with 20% of the men. so the weighting on these apps is not reflective of the real world.

imtringued 2y ago
There are four times more men than women on the apps. The moment a women sorts by almost any criteria, 80% of the men will be filtered out purely because of that.
poloniculmov 2y ago
what data? I've only heard this from the "manosphere".
- Gigachad 2y ago
  OkCupid posted some stats in a blog post years ago which was pretty enlightening. They since deleted it, and I don’t think any dating company would dare make a similar post with the data they have these days.

ziggyzecat 2y ago

I had the same thought but a split second later I remembered why I'm sitting on the couch with a screen in front of my eyes on a freaking Sunday morning. There's probably something around two dozen better options where I could "speed date" (talk to/flirt with) a bunch of people who will share some space & time on a sunny Sunday morning. And since I know people with money, I know that "being able to afford xyz" doesn't mean shit. Even fuck you money doesn't. Sure, some "chicks" roll with it, but I never heard or read words from one of those chicks (traveling, Dubai, family, friends of friends in theater) that resonated with me or made me think: "potentially a good enough Mom." But then again, a 100 bucks isn't that much for a working, single dude. The need to know so much about a person before a date is just another sign of subliminal depression, mania and obsession. Maybe they should start putting dating profiles into captchas or something. Is this a human? Do you like her looks? Do you like her last tweet? No? Based on our data points, you should. Access denied. Let's try again. I recommend that "busy"-no-time-people find some way to prime their brain for exploration of humans and characters. Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding. How does it work? How does _she_ work?

anal_reactor 2y ago
> And since I know people with money It's not about "rich people must be good" but rather "most poor people are bad"
- ziggyzecat 2y ago
  > "most poor people are bad" That made me chuckle and reminded me of how the YouTube algorithm kept recommending that I watch 'Peter Singer - Ordinary People Are Evil for years. I still haven't watched it but life experience does tell a somewhat fitting story.
shepherdjerred 2y ago
> Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding. That's an interesting pivot. With this mindset, how do you distinguish settling from a reasonable compromise?

throwaway290 2y ago

> “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $100+/mo Suppose you wouldn't need to pay more than $100 if you'd find your match and leave platform. Serious goal = serious price. Marriage will cost much more anyway. Marriage with a wrong person will cost 10x again.

ziggyzecat 2y ago
One can buy flowers, pay a cute kid to surprise a lady with them and point at you for a 100 bucks irl, and there's still enough for a drink or two. Hell, 100 bucks is enough for 1 more & refined attempt.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  For homo sapiens women make the mating decisions. Unless she immediately judges you as a good genetic fit, she will feel you're stalking her and call the police or something. (Yes, it's mostly genetics. Women have a gut feel for genetic fitness in mates.)
  - imtringued 2y ago
    If this is what it all boils down to then we should just skip all the bullshit and go straight to DNA sequencing and checking for autosomal recessive diseases and the possibility of genetic diseases for a given DNA pair.
    - ziggyzecat 2y ago
      sounds like Elisabeth Holmes pivot strategy but she didn't get to ^^
  - ziggyzecat 2y ago
    Yes they do, but - having fun, - needs, - desire to gratify received interest, - desire to return the favor of raising ones attractiveness, - desire to reward a diverse range of behaviors (some hard-coded into genes as well!) CAN & often will override anything "fitness", and much more often than not, not only temporary!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

big-green-man 2y ago

Women absolutely would participate on a platform that is free to use and has a high enough barrier to entry that they can select out all the scrubs and they can freely get what they're after without all the mess. Have you seen online dating today? It's a dumpster for both men and women. Men get a better shot at what they want for a higher fee, women get access to men they'd actually want to meet with. - men who can't afford that are already scratching the bottom of the barrel on dating sites and feeling like total losers because they have no prospects they're happy with - most people would show you a picture of their butthole as long as they knew it would be kept confidential if that meant they'd have a better shot at finding what they're after - information source aggregation, analogous to meeting people in more places than the singles bar - wasting peoples time is an undesirable trait - youre using an app to find sex and/or love, the interface changes nothing about this - the last two are the same as number 2, just analytics for the algorithm. When you're designing an algorithmic solution to mate pairing, you have to treat it like a meat market and gamify it for best results. And the current incumbents are absolutely doing that, it's just that their interests do not align with their users.

xnickb 2y ago
Do you have any supporting arguments for your claims?
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Are you serious? Have you used an online dating app in the last decade? Do you know any men or women who have? Do you want me to link a source for "wasting people's time is an undesirable trait"? What sort of supporting arguments do you need?