Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 508 posts

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#111

Post by CuriouslyC »

jimmaswell wrote: post #64
lone_haxx0r wrote: post #47

Do you think that an open source dating app or a decentralized dating protocol would be a good idea?

Dating apps are a failed idea. If you're a man and have any imperfections appearance-wise you'll go on these sites and get no responses. In college I did hundreds of swipes and sent a bunch of messages on OKC and got nothing because I wasn't a human Ken doll. I could've spent all day in the gym and gotten plastic surgery and spent hundreds on whatever wardrobe was in style but why do all that for people who can't app…

The people on dating apps aren't really bad. The problem is the male-female asymmetry. On most dating sites men outnumber women five to tenfold. Additionally, most guys will spam likes and messages to hundreds of women. The hyper selectivity of women on these sites is mostly the result of trying to keep their heads above water.

You should be aware that the "experiments" people have posted online aren't necessarily unbiased either. There are a lot of bitter, loveless men writing content on the internet.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#113

Post by xeromal »

warent wrote: post #33
bigwavedave wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the only profession aside from medicine that exists to eradicate itself.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. I'm inferring a tone of sarcasm from your comment but I'm not sure what you're really trying to communicate here.

I don't think they're being sarcastic. It's a market that when done efficiently and successfully, puts itself out of business. The better medicine gets, the less patients they get.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#114

Post by solution3982 »

Splatter wrote: post #88
jdm2212 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do the same thing with a gmail address -- just do myemail+uniqueid@gmail.com, because gmail drops everything after the + for routing the email but still tells you which address it was sent to.

What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.

>What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.

Unfortunately, there is a mathematical theorem (greater idiot theorem) that makes it technically impossible to generate a new random string that becomes an inbox that goes to your inbox.

How do I know that it's technically impossible?

Because otherwise Gmail would have done it already, since this takes 20 minutes and fixes a glaring security issue that gives spammers access to your email that you didn't grant.

I can't have an IQ 50 points higher than all Gmail engineers, so it must stand to reason that I'm the greater idiot. Hence there must be something preventing this obvious solution. QED.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#115

Post by CuriouslyC »

wmp56 wrote: post #108
jimmaswell wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dating apps are a failed idea. If you're a man and have any imperfections appearance-wise you'll go on these sites and get no responses. In college I did hundreds of swipes and sent a bunch of messages on OKC and got nothing because I wasn't a human Ken doll. I could've spent all day in the gym and gotten plastic surgery and spent hundreds on whatever wardrobe was in style but why do all that for people who can't app…

I think women mostly look at social status of men. Appearance is only a plus. An ideal candidate is a wealthy gentleman with manners.

It isn't a good idea to generalize women, they're very diverse. I know plenty who don't really care about wealth or manners but love a big tough guy that makes them feel safe and fucks them hard.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#116

Post by wmp56 »

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #47

Do you think that an open source dating app or a decentralized dating protocol would be a good idea?

I have one idea that I'm working on now. It will be open source (both app and the server, AGPLv3), but only to prove that it doesn't do anything fishy. There is no way it can make money, though, but luckily, I don't need that.

You probably meant to ask how to make a dating app that also makes money in an honest and upfront way. Such services had existed long before the internet, you know them well, and they just honestly recognize the true reasons why men and women want to date. In short: human moderation with the premium to access the high quality dating pool. Obviously, fees there are way higher than what most people can afford.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#117

Post by wmp56 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #115
wmp56 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think women mostly look at social status of men. Appearance is only a plus. An ideal candidate is a wealthy gentleman with manners.

It isn't a good idea to generalize women, they're very diverse. I know plenty who don't really care about wealth or manners but love a big tough guy that makes them feel safe and fucks them hard.

OK, the 95% percentile, if we want to be pedantic. Regardless, this comment tree is going to be taken down because you used a banned word.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#118

Post by hmate9 »

solution3982 wrote: post #114
Splatter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.

>What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database. Unfortunately, there is a mathematical theorem (greater idiot theorem) that makes it technically impossible to generate a new random string that becomes an inbox that goes to your inbox. How do I know that it's technically impossible? Because otherwise Gmail…

Wait, isn’t this exactly what Apple is doing with Sign in with Apple?

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#119

Post by CuriouslyC »

dvt wrote: post #10
RandomBacon wrote: post #5

Unrelated, but I'm thinking about using one or more dating sites. Which ones do people here use, and what are your thoughts/observations?

Short answer? They are all trash and the space is ripe for disruption. The best of the bunch is probably Hinge, Bumble, and Coffee Meets Bagel. But like I said, getting a date off these apps is like pulling teeth. I've reverted to asking girls out in person at coffee shops, social gatherings, etc. Even if you get rejected, it at least makes for a good story.

Hinge and Coffee Meets Bagel are trash outside of extremely large metro areas. Bumble is ok, it's more user friendly than Tinder. OkCupid has a terrible user interface but in terms of pulling dates it's been the best for me.

Good on you for talking to girls directly, that really is the way to go. Super hot women don't tend to bother with online dating, and if you can approach confidently you'll be able to land much hotter women in person than online anyhow.

Re: Match.com Used Fake Ads to Swindle Users, F.T.C. Says

#120

Post by rypskar »

jdm2212 wrote: post #93
Splatter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.

That's a bummer. FWIW there are a fair number of non-gmail domains that are gmail-backed (e.g. a lot of universities' email systems) so it should still work with those consistently I hope.

It don't need to be gmail-backed for + to work. I use it on my own domain without any problems and there is no gmail involved
Post reply on HN