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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#221

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

BurningFrog wrote: post #217
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

By standard Economic theory, that is not a stable strategy, since it incentivises starting new dating apps. It only has to be moderately successful to ensure a profitable exit. Over time, Match would run out of money. Given that Economists overwhelmingly get these things right more than our intuitions, I'm really curious what explanations they have.

> Given that Economists overwhelmingly get these things right more than our intuitions, I'm really curious what explanations they have.

Why doesn't it?

If someone is willing to sell you something for $1M - and you can make it user hostile and extract $10M from it - why not keep making that $1M purchase of new dating apps?

As long as Match buys the apps for less than what they can extract from them - it's sustainable.

Re: The dating app paradox

#222

Post by julianeon »

phlipski wrote: post #175
carabiner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man my comment on how Match group is a gambling app company is up there. I've been online dating for 20 years with pretty decent experiences as a short, ugly man, but now indeed the app/online dating situation is the worst ever. Some of this is probably due to me being older though.

With all due respect here - "20 years of successful online dating" sounds like an oxymoron! Unless you're choosing to date and to not enter into a long term relationship?

Actually this brings up an interesting point: the article implicitly assumes that the winning condition, the optimal outcome, is a long term relationship. But is it? Certainly many rich guys don’t act like that (stay w one person for 50+ years). This is important, because if we don’t have a consensus on what the best outcome is, that would explain why we’re not getting one. There may not be a single optimal outcome for that userbase.

Re: The dating app paradox

#223

Post by Retric »

thriftwy wrote: post #208
nonrandomstring wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

[flagged]

US conservatives have nothing to do with maintaining or returning to historic norms. From massive government subsidies and radical tax policies to wild spending sprees they’ve completely abandoned past stances only keeping the name. Similarly modern democratic politicians have no real connection to the glass of water theory and similar stances.

Voters on each side are extremely diverse to the point there’s little universal on either side. As should be obvious from the two party system.

Re: The dating app paradox

#224

Post by nonrandomstring »

Syonyk wrote: post #200
fourseventy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to put the government in control of who we date? No thanks.

As opposed to for-profit, ad-driven, surveillance capitalism companies with a demonstrated interest in short term profits and hoovering all the data they can? Yeah. I'd be willing to take that risk. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the government is a good group to do this. I just think they're a less-bad group than the usual parties.

This might be heresy to say around these parts but arranged marriages in Asian countries are typically successful and happy. Note there is a world of difference between arranged and "forced" marriages.

Yes, there are downsides to what is seen in the "secular west" as an illiberal over-involvement of families. 'Honour killings' and other regressive horrors can occur. But they're not the norm. Plus side is that healthy, supportive involvement from both sides of a family is super valuable.

But why stop at the family? Throughout most of human history the community, the village, respected friends etc, have held a really important place in matchmaking. Just read some Jane Austen :)

We like the illusion of total independence and choice. In 2024 we can have that. And thank goodness we've gotten past those old suffocating social norms that kept people in traps of class and normative gender roles.

But the model of isolated autonomous Bayesian-utility-maximising actors rationally selecting each other ... is a crock. We just don't do that. As soon as we get a serious date, what is the first thing we do... introduce them to our friends for approval!

So sure, there are any number of groups from which we could take healthier advice than from a for-profit company that feeds on loneliness and isolation, including maybe a benevolent government that funds services which ultimately result in better mental health and social stability.

Re: The dating app paradox

#225

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

cogman10 wrote: post #199
fourseventy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to put the government in control of who we date? No thanks.

I have to ask, how are you envisioning this goes poorly?

Easy - OP's imagining the government forces you to date people - instead of offering a loss-leading alternative to a monopoly.

If you start with the presumption that the government can do nothing but be a dystopia - it's easy to imagine ways anything can end up being a dystopia.

Re: The dating app paradox

#226

Post by prepend »

Syonyk wrote: post #200
fourseventy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to put the government in control of who we date? No thanks.

As opposed to for-profit, ad-driven, surveillance capitalism companies with a demonstrated interest in short term profits and hoovering all the data they can? Yeah. I'd be willing to take that risk. Don't get me wrong. I don't think the government is a good group to do this. I just think they're a less-bad group than the usual parties.

I have never used a government web site that was better than a marginal ad driven site.

I can barely pay my trash bill and can’t imagine a dating app run by any aspect of US federal, state, or local government.

Re: The dating app paradox

#227

Post by romwell »

skrbjc wrote: post #185
Exoristos wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…

>I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children

Yeah, and many people in the US would be way more eager to do that had we had:

- affordable housing

- minimum wage that allows a single parent to support themselves

- universal healthcare

- mandated paid (and then, unpaid) parental leave

- free childcare

- substancial financial assistance to new parents

- walkable safe environments, transportation, and regulations that allow children to move around on their own

- widely available after-school programs

- free college education

...you get the drift. Dating isn't the bottleneck here.

Re: The dating app paradox

#228

Post by nonrandomstring »

thriftwy wrote: post #208
nonrandomstring wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

[flagged]

Thanks, great link and concept. Think I heard Peterson remark on this Bolshevik dehumanisation of relations before, but this is a memorable handle on it.

edit: also, while we're talking of glasses, that whole conservative-progressive axis is through the looking glass now. A lot of what looks "progressive" now is simply restorative to common sense.

Re: The dating app paradox

#229

Post by sapphicsnail »

thriftwy wrote: post #208
nonrandomstring wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?

[flagged]

Conservative doesn't necessarily == old. I'm a woman who loves other women, we've been around forever, but conservatives want to make it difficult for us to have relationships.

Re: The dating app paradox

#230

Post by renjimen »

ravenstine wrote: post #74
michaelt wrote: post #34

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I can recommend creating an account on your dating app of choice with the opposite gender. The experiences are as different as night and day - and the different user groups have completely different requirements of the product. The article is interesting, but IMHO they've really missed the key asymmetries that make good dating apps so hard to build.

Better yet, do some experiments outside of just gender. Make an account for a dog. Or be a guy who's a total douchebag. You may not like what you find. EDIT: Seems people here don't like what I have to say or think I'm kidding. I haven't done the dog experiment myself, though I've seen it done a few times by others. It's quite the realization when a dog gets more attention than you do as a human on a dating app. Yeah…

> Many women in my locality are looking specifically for a good time with him.

Attention != success.

Post reply on HN