Earlier quoted context omitted.
> exploit people's weakness for money Weakness?
Loneliness
I feel like that's just being human, not a weakness. Thy are exploiting humanities desire to form relationships.
Never pay for online dating (2010)
201–210 of 495 posts
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#202Earlier 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)
> (probably exists somewhere on archive.org) Yep! https://web.archive.org/web/20091121080804/http://blog.okcup... God I love archive.org
Me too. Please remember they are funded and can exist only through donations:
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bisexual thing was pretty stupid and pretty revealing how much this blog post was bullshit, there was a bunch of reason why you would pick one gender as a bisexual, especially if online dating was just to meet more of the gender you wanted. But a bi dude, in 2010 you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi and plenty of gay dude would turn you down as well, so you just wouldn't bother and write gay o…
>But a bi dude, in 2010 (and still today) you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi This is simply not true. Maybe I'm just hot enough to overcome the queer disgust? I don't feel like I'm that hot.
Depends on where you live and what age your dating pool is.
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I'd rather go to a bar/pub anyway. Social, human beings, brawling to order a beer at the zinc, contact and all that? Not to mention you at least get the tipsiness/(more: drunk) if/when all else fails... 8>
Same here, I can look at, meet, and chat with 5-10 girls in one evening in a bar, and get a pretty good impression of them. Takes months to do the same on a dating app, with heaps of added toxic behaviour/people that you don't get in a bar. Gave it up a long time ago..
Maybe I'm just socially inept, but I have never once managed to meet someone at a bar that wasn't already part of some bigger group that I was with.
Edit: that's actually untrue, there are exactly 2 instances where it happened in my life. They were in the kinds of bars that I would usually avoid (too many drunk people shouting over loud music), in areas far from where I lived, that had pretty strong "going out" cultures.
Edit 2: now that I think about it, I'm not exactly dashing handsome. I've historically done a lot better in "house party" type of settings, but again that's with people who are already friends of friends.
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#205OkCupid was bought by Match Group (who run almost all online dating sites, including Match, eHarmony, and Tinder) in 2011 and took down this post not long after. EDIT: the purchase was Feb 2011 [1] and the post was removed sometime between Jan 2011 [2] and Mar 2011 [3]. The rest of the blog was still up at the time [4]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456140/The-Last-Word-In-Bu... [2] https://web.archive.org/we…
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…
[deleted]
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bisexual thing was pretty stupid and pretty revealing how much this blog post was bullshit, there was a bunch of reason why you would pick one gender as a bisexual, especially if online dating was just to meet more of the gender you wanted. But a bi dude, in 2010 you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi and plenty of gay dude would turn you down as well, so you just wouldn't bother and write gay o…
>But a bi dude, in 2010 (and still today) you simply wouldn't get match with women if you write bi This is simply not true. Maybe I'm just hot enough to overcome the queer disgust? I don't feel like I'm that hot.
> This is simply not true.
I removed the point about today since I haven't been dating in a few years, but I stand by the 2010 comment, you could find a few female stars being openly bisexual for example but it was incredibly rare for male stars, which is indicative of how hot it was perceived at the time.
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dating apps do not work because you are not actually present. You have the attention of hundreds of people at the same time, so unless you decide to meet up right away, the other party immediately loses interest. Most of the people are just looking for sex or something less serious, and the apps heavily paywall males. They are cancer. Meeting through friends is probably the safest, as that at least gives you some saf…
> unless you decide to meet up right away, the other party immediately loses interest Well, yeah. You should meet up right away. What else you gonna do? Flirt over text for weeks?
Actually get to known each other before we go over for a drink or lunch, instead of hurrying it up just to have an awkward time?
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#208I 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'…
Have you seen the state of governments ? They are so incompetent that famine/frost/nuclear apocalypse are serious possibilities..
If you think they look bad, you should check out some of their constituents.
Seriously though, this seems like an area where anti-trust and transparency regulation (service X has a Y rating for producing matches that meet standard Q) could play a useful role.
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#209OkCupid was bought by Match Group (who run almost all online dating sites, including Match, eHarmony, and Tinder) in 2011 and took down this post not long after. EDIT: the purchase was Feb 2011 [1] and the post was removed sometime between Jan 2011 [2] and Mar 2011 [3]. The rest of the blog was still up at the time [4]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2011/02/03/133456140/The-Last-Word-In-Bu... [2] https://web.archive.org/we…
Match has turned all of its apps into tinder. That is, gambling-like "one more swipe" photo centric dating apps, where the artificial restriction of choice keeps every person starved. Tinder is casual hookups, okcupid is leftist tinder for relationships, Hinge is politically moderate tinder for traditionalists, and so on. Each is a different marketing segment, but the same basic idea that gets men to pay to meet women.
Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)
#210Earlier 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…
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…
They're not surveys, and that's exactly the point. Surveys reveal how people claim to behave, which may nor not be how they actually think they behave, which may or may not be how they actually behave.
If they were surveys, your criticism would be valid.
Instead, this was about how people actually behave, so neither fooling themselves nor others.