The math behind the online dating markets is, unironically, a really interesting (and disturbing) subject. You’ve got a service that ostensibly exists to introduce single individuals, but ultimately generates revenue from perpetually single people trapped in a cycle of hook-ups and break-ups. So who initially gets shown to whom is perversely incentivized. You’re baited into continuous engagement by a mix of people you like but who won’t respond and people you don’t like who will.
There’s also the marketing angle - women and men are marketed to totally differently, setting up these stark variances in what each user expects to see and is encouraged to select. And then there’s the secondary market - professional models and social media starlets, con-artists and catfishers, and restaurants posing as dates to trick you into eating out alone - preying on gullible singles.
The restaurant posing as dates story that you linked to was interesting. It seems like the kind of thing would work until the townspeople burned the place down.
We should break up match group. With hammers, if needed.
But I do think a lot of people self sabotage on the apps. They’ll be like “no one has an interesting conversation with me” but their profile is like 3 bland photos and “I like to have fun”. My guy, you need to give people something to work with.
But also I don’t trust that the app is actually showing profiles to anyone with a reasonable algorithm. They probably could actually show me people I’d be compatible with. They chose not to.
There’s probably some blood on their hands, thinking about it. Lying to people that this app will lead to relationships when they intentionally sabotage that for profit means people are unhappier, more frustrated, and some of them probably go on to do violence. It’s probably producing incels.
Do you have some more sources or articles on this subject of the math behind it? Because that sounds like a really interesting subject people shoule know more about.
The math behind the online dating markets is, unironically, a really interesting (and disturbing) subject. You’ve got a service that ostensibly exists to introduce single individuals, but ultimately generates revenue from perpetually single people trapped in a cycle of hook-ups and break-ups. So who initially gets shown to whom is perversely incentivized. You’re baited into continuous engagement by a mix of people you like but who won’t respond and people you don’t like who will.
There’s also the marketing angle - women and men are marketed to totally differently, setting up these stark variances in what each user expects to see and is encouraged to select. And then there’s the secondary market - professional models and social media starlets, con-artists and catfishers, and restaurants posing as dates to trick you into eating out alone - preying on gullible singles.
The restaurant posing as dates story that you linked to was interesting. It seems like the kind of thing would work until the townspeople burned the place down.
We should break up match group. With hammers, if needed.
But I do think a lot of people self sabotage on the apps. They’ll be like “no one has an interesting conversation with me” but their profile is like 3 bland photos and “I like to have fun”. My guy, you need to give people something to work with.
But also I don’t trust that the app is actually showing profiles to anyone with a reasonable algorithm. They probably could actually show me people I’d be compatible with. They chose not to.
There’s probably some blood on their hands, thinking about it. Lying to people that this app will lead to relationships when they intentionally sabotage that for profit means people are unhappier, more frustrated, and some of them probably go on to do violence. It’s probably producing incels.
Do you have some more sources or articles on this subject of the math behind it? Because that sounds like a really interesting subject people shoule know more about.