171–180 of 495 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good for you. Doesnt change the fact they are shady and made to mainly exploit people's weakness for money.
How is wanting to meet a partner "weakness"?
I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…
Well how about we start a non-profit dating app? I was just wondering how much it could cost to run the backend with todays cloud services. With what Tinder is charging for boosts and subscriptions I feel like they're raking it in. But I've never developed and deployed a fully cloud based app, just used a bunch of their services off and on.
I don't get it. Why does no government anywhere run a non-profit dating site from tax-payer money when this is becoming the most popular way people are meeting? All the options people have are using toxic apps which entire business model is to undermine the self-esteem of young men and scamming them out of their money. And then people wonder where the mental health problems and mass shootings come from. I really don'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do have memory-holed some very inconvenient blog posts, such as this https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ (probably exists somewhere on archive.org)
I was a regular reader of their blog. It was great. They had a bunch of data on how we data and they weren't afraid to let the data speak. This resulted in some ppl getting upset b/c they had to hear something that didn't fit their worldview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More Orwellian still, they edited articles that contained data inconvenient to the politically correct narrative and elite ideology. Edit: Here's an example. “I’m bisexual.” REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender. People who describe themselves as bisexual overwhelmingly message either one sex or the other, not both as you might expect. https://web.archive.org/web/20170307114207/h…
I don't see how the bisexual statistic is politically incorrect. It makes sense, considering the self-professed "bisexuals" I've known, which are well known as well in liberal-leaning circles: 1. Young women who pretend to be Bi to get more attention from Men 2. People who pretend to be Bi to avoid having to completely come out of the closet There's actually a saying in the gay community for the latter, "Bi now, gay…
I think by gay community you meant asshole gay people, I've been waiting for a very long while now to turn gay (I'm a bisexual dude).
> I don't see how the bisexual statistic is politically incorrect.
Not politically incorrect, just deeply ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats inconvinient to the pollitically correct narrative is people with 0 scientific literacy making bold claims about society based on surveys on extremely sampled social studies. Doing a study on how "dateable" black women are based on a specific dating app in 2010 is like making claims on everyones eating habits based on a survey on a Burger king drive through. It will probably not be a very good survey. They also…
"incel" and "black pill" terminology didn't even exist in 2010.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do have memory-holed some very inconvenient blog posts, such as this https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/ (probably exists somewhere on archive.org)
They've memory-holed (i.e. deleted) their entire old blog, no? It's disappointing but I think it's a stretch to describe that as Orwellian (as the OP did). At some point they just discarded all their old content, it's not that much of a conspiracy.
If someone is deleting their posts because the facts don't align to the worldview of a religion, a political party, a corporation or some other powerful group, many people will be more concerned about that than if the posts had been deleted for more routine, functional business reasons.
One fake account later (required to view attachments), I saw pictures of her dog doing her in... Uh... various ways.
I stopped online dating for like 5 years after that.
You, as a user of a dating app, are forever in a Nash Equilibrium with the dating app. When you find the love of your life, you delete the app forever. Therefore, everything the app does to help you find that person works directly against their own goals (user growth, “engagement”. subscriptions).
> works directly against their own goals (user growth, “engagement”. subscriptions). ... success stories, marriages per day due to the app (as per Match.com's advertising material in the article), word of mouth advertisement for the app to your friends...? Again, from the article, even in 2011 match.com was proudly reporting that its active user base changed out every six months. So the "dating apps don't want you to…
Read the article again; their explanation is that after 6 months, people either butt out, or pair-off and butt out.
Related personal anecdote: I am experimenting with Tinder subscription at the moment, and it feels incredibly exploitative. When you make a profile, matches are frequent and you can tell that you show up for people. However it gradually falls down with time, and the only predictable and obvious way to get back up is to pay for Boosts and/or Priority Likes. Right now my 6-month old profile gets ZERO likes outside of t…
Honestly, I am ok with this system. Paying a couple dollars for a matchmaking service isn't a big deal. If you go to bars instead you will pay way more. An introduction to a potential partner is worth at least $50 in my opinion, if anything Tinder is too cheap. There are too many guys on tinder and most of them are not serious, mindlessly swiping as a way of wasting time. If you filter out the free users and only mat…