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

261–270 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#261

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #79
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As an iPhone user, I’d seriously consider using a dating app that ONLY allowed you to “Sign in with Apple”, This way you can also avoid the poor Android users and clear them off the gene pool. /s

If I had a dollar for every "green bubble" comment I got when I started texting someone from a dating app, I'd almost be able to to buy an iPhone

On the plus side, someone seriously thinking having an Android is a red flag is a red flag on its own.

If I started talking to someone and they said "Ew, you're on an Android?", I'd be like "Oh, you're like that. Nevermind then. Good bye!"

Re: The dating app paradox

#262

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

Meekro wrote: post #243
Rebelgecko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a dollar for every "green bubble" comment I got when I started texting someone from a dating app, I'd almost be able to to buy an iPhone

Wait, so this is a thing in the real world? I thought it was just people on Twitter being dumb. Like, prospective dates are judging you on your brand of phone? Maybe I'm just too old now (mid-30's) but I don't even know what kind of phone most of my friends and acquaintances have.

YES. It is ABSOLUTELY A THING.

I personally haven't dealt with it, but I personally know people who have. They tend to skew younger, and it's a big deal in middle/high schools. Kids will actually bully other kids just because they have an Android.

It's pathetic that Apple marketing has worked so well at convincing people that they're the luxury product.

Re: The dating app paradox

#263

Post by Exoristos »

user_7832 wrote: post #235
Exoristos wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to start a friendly conversation under circumstances where an average male might fail is a prime sign of date-ability. While humans are very complicated, the general animal rule that males must impress females still exists at some level in some form.

> Being able to start a friendly conversation under circumstances where an average male might fail is a prime sign of date-ability. Under this assumption, would the average man be undateble? (Not that I agree or disagree with the rest, but this seems odd to me.)

What assumption? The assumption that a bookstore is the only place men and women can interact?

Re: The dating app paradox

#264

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

generalizations wrote: post #215
IIAOPSW wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's a genius adversarial strategy to be had here. It seems to me the dominant player is overvaluing the possibility of being displaced and is misallocating capital to acquire competition of dubious merits. I can leverage this by making a passable clone of their product in the hopes of being bought out for much more than I'm worth.

The hardest part is users. I’d imagine what they’re actually buying is the marketshare of the competition. Note that ‘subpar matching to keep users on the app’ only works if you control a large majority of the market. Which is all to say, it’s not the app clone you’re selling them. It’s the users you stole and are selling back.

Subpar matching is a consequence of 80%+ being rejected by default. You either exclude them from your platform or string them along to monetize them. You're not going to find a technical solution to reduce bias in human behavior.

Re: The dating app paradox

#265

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

gnicholas wrote: post #251
sweetro17 wrote: post #248

Former dating app founder here - lots of thoughts on the space - feel free to AMA High level though, there's a lot of human behavior which makes dating frustrating with or without apps. At it's core, even in the best case, dating has A LOT of rejection. Dating apps introduce more opportunity for incremental validation (you got liked!) but also incremental rejection (you got ghosted!) and the sheer number of interacti…

Why do you think apps don't do (1), if it would benefit dating? Because people would just choose to use different apps because of the perceived quality issue you mentioned? To what extent do you think the core issues are driven by the different goals of men/women, and the dynamics they create?

Not the OP but I think they don’t because it’s more profitable and makes a more addictive experience for the user.

Think about it - an app can directly influence the amount of matches you get. Show your profile to everyone at the beginning, a fair number of matches. Not paid yet? Show their profile to fewer people, then when you think the user is about to leave, ramp up the visibility for just enough matches to keep them hooked.

User just paid for the Gold tier? Increase their profile visibility… Not too much though, you want to create that dry spell so you can repeat the cycle and get them onto the Gold Plus tier.

For-profit dating apps are essentially gambling apps.

Re: The dating app paradox

#266

Post by dkarras »

devit wrote: post #98

Committed relationships found by judging other people's personality and looks are completely unnatural for human beings, and a result of conditioning by society. The natural state is living immersed in a place where other beings are and spontaneously interacting with them without a developed ego/personality filtering the interaction, as the closest relatives to human (chimpanzees and bonobos) do. This makes the socia…

>Committed relationships found by judging other people's personality and looks are completely unnatural for human beings, and a result of conditioning by society.

Humans developed culture and language. It is in our genes, how our brains evolved. Whatever we are doing right now is our natural state. Society, likewise, consists of other humans, and whatever conditioning they exert is also part of human nature, specifically of humans in large groups. Whatever social conditioning you are thinking of was not brought upon us by aliens.

Re: The dating app paradox

#267

Post by claytongulick »

romwell wrote: post #227
skrbjc wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs?

How much would you have left over for raising children?

Re: The dating app paradox

#268

Post by garciasn »

user_7832 wrote: post #245
garciasn wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no access to any financial account, ever. Once I gained access, after the fact, there were nearly $16K in cash advances against a credit card I didn’t even know I had. Purchased all new dresses. Purchased workout equipment (rarely, if ever used). Purchased sex toys and sex-related clothing I never saw used. 5 new credit cards in her name. Pieces of paper with divorce related info I assumed were for a friend of…

I'm sorry to hear that. Wouldn't some of that be considered a crime/fraud, meaning legal recourse may be an option? Of course a lawyer would know better. (Not that it might be easy to recover the money, but the judge could have wages garnished.)

The burden is on me to prove she used it to prepare for divorce or used it on her affair. It’ll cost at least $100K and probably more to do so and it may not matter.

And, no, when you’re married it’s not fraud.

Re: The dating app paradox

#269

Post by claytongulick »

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?

Where there is government, there is politics.

Do you think the government would be able to resist the temptation to engage in politics as it relates to dating?

Re: The dating app paradox

#270

Post by evantbyrne »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
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…

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.

What people need are 3rd spaces where they can touch grass together. Online dating is a failed social experiment. Most women won't touch it as-is. Once men start using AI generated imagery en masse, hopefully women will catch onto it and end it for good.
Post reply on HN