> I don't see where it reaffirms worldviews or makes behaviors seem reasonable. The fundamental structure of the app is that women are to be trusted, men are n

> I don't see where it reaffirms worldviews or makes behaviors seem reasonable. The fundamental structure of the app is that women are to be trusted, men are not, and that if men want to speak to women, they must perform feats which meet the approval of the woman. (This is just paraphrasing their own description, from the news article.) This exactly agrees with the world view of those problematic actors: that relations between gender is a game where you simply need to strike the woman's fancy a particular way and have little to no control over the outcome, besides simply throwing messages to the wind. From a strictly rational perspective, the best way to succeed at that (if you're looking for short lasting relationships with many women) is to attempt to evade the evaluation criteria using trickery or find women with less stringent criteria, both of which are best accomplished using a lot of activity with generic responses/profiles and attempting to interact with as many women as possible. In this sense, Siren is actually incentivizing bad behaviors in a manner similar to other dating websites, except that it takes it a step further, and explicitly acknowledges and incorporates this gender bias. Further, it allows bad actors to concentrate all their effort on making a single profile good (in order to bypass the first layer of filtering and allow them to message as many women as possible), instead of having to create many messages. A profile, in this sense, is simply automating the copy-and-pasted messages that women receive. As I mentioned, I don't think that it's any easier to filter problematic profiles in order to locate good ones, meaning that throwing your net wider (eg, many profiles of mediocre quality) and being a larger portion of the noise is more likely to get you noticed than being a high quality respondent. In particular, why do you think bad actors are less likely to respond to many questions or post many videos than people who make quality submissions? This seems dubious at best, and leaves Siren with a very nasty filtering problem: removing very active, low quality users without impacting high or low activity, high quality users. Ed: I guess I should mention that Siren will solve one problem that it explicitly aimed to: men can no longer simply message women in droves, and it allows the woman to regulate the rate at which messages reach her. However, the more fundamental problem is that women weren't able to filter poor quality messages from problematic actors away from high quality messages they wanted to get. While Siren solves the flood of messages, in the sense of raw message count, it does nothing to address this fundamental problem of filtering quality from not, and might actually make that more challenging. In short, I think that Siren has some really good ideas in terms of privacy and rate limiting, but that it falls short of its real goal, which is the quality filtering, and does so in a way that's liable to make the actual problem worse.