Never pay for online dating (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#281

Post by EmilyHughes » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:58 PM UTC

BrainVirus wrote: post #268

EmilyHughes wrote: post #62

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'…

>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? Sounds like a great idea. I nominate NSA as the host organization. You wouldn't even need to bother creating a profile, they will just use all the surveillance data to find you the best matches. https://crossdysfunctional.tumblr.com/post/109024982557/fund...

If you have more trust in a shady private company than your own government it's time to move to another country.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#282

Post by hezralig » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #163

houstonn wrote: post #28

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’m bisexual.” REALITY: 80% of self-identified bisexuals are only interested in one gender This isn't the slam dunk it appears to be. A dietary equivalent would be "X% of self-professed omnivores avoid vegetarian dishes". They are open to the idea, but still have preferences. Just because one is open to the superset, doesn't mean they assign each subset equal weight.

Or,

I eat $x at home, I am looking for $y on this service.

There are plenty of bisexual people I know that have open arrangements who are in relationships with a partner of one sex and are only permitted by that partner to date people of another sex by that partner (because fear of competition/jealousy reasons).

Some people only want romantic relationships with a partner of one sex while hookups with another. Some people have bi-cycles. Some people are attracted to a person of their own gender 80% of the time and another 20% of the time.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#283

Post by Double_a_92 » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #88

EmilyHughes wrote: post #62

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'…

Why would this need to be government run?

Everything else so far seems to absolutely suck.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#284

Post by tomxor » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #12

OkCupid 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…

> 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].

Internet Archive is great for cases of self censorship like this. I assume that as part of the acquisition the author was compelled to take it down.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#285

Post by bschne » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

soylentcola wrote: post #87

jugg1es wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are saying that the profile photos on dating sites seem a lot less staged, than you are right. Good quality cameras on cell phones were not nearly as ubiquitous in 2010 as they are now. I think it was better back then because you could get a good sense of the person's personality from their photos than you can now.

Also, it wasn't a given that you were only/primarily using it via a mobile app. I remember frequently browsing OkC and chatting with people on my computer during lunch. It was a lot more focused on saying things before they turned into another swipe/mobile-centric platform.

I just recently saw a documentary excerpt where two women were browsing and discussing profiles on a dating site in the early aughts — there sure seemed to be more info and more engagement with a given profile. Whether that actually led to better outcomes, I don't know, but the difference is pretty big.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#286

Post by auveair » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

skyyler wrote: post #217

auveair wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My lived experience just completely disagrees with what you are saying. Perhaps it's an age difference thing. The gay men have had more of a problem with me than the straight ladies. I gravitate towards bi/pan people anyways due to my androgynous features.

I don't know how old you are, but anyway it seems you are starting with a pretty good crowd, if you're not ugly, androgynous (sought after) and dating in an understanding pool, which is your own orientation. I see where you are coming from but it doesn't seem like it warranted the blanket dismissal you started with.

For what it's worth I found a blog post referring to that phenomenon from a few years ago which talks about a poll conducted in Glamour Magazine: https://web.archive.org/web/20160320094402/https://www.pride...

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#287

Post by hezralig » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:01 PM UTC

RajT88 wrote: post #107

houstonn wrote: post #28

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…

There are plenty of bisexual people I know that have open arrangements who are in relationships with a partner of one sex and are only permitted by that partner to date people of another sex by that partner (because fear of competition/jealousy reasons).

Some people only want romantic relationships with a partner of one sex while hookups with another. Some people have bi-cycles. Some people are attracted to a person of their own gender 80% of the time and another 20% of the time.

Many bi people aren't out or completely honesty with their dating history because they have to put up with the insecurities and stereotypes trotted out by the chronically ignorant from both straight and gay communities. The lack of support and understanding is one of the reasons why rates of depression and anxiety are higher for bisexual people. Imagine being questioned about your preferences and asked to make a choice by a group of people that were held to a similar level of cultural-interrogation by heterosexuals. Bisexuals are a minority of a minority, however, I am glad the attitude of thinking bisexuality is secretly indecisiveness is dying off.

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#288

Post by mikepurvis » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

Cloudef wrote: post #260

imiric wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dating apps do not work > unless you decide to meet up right away, the other party immediately loses interest. I think you're contradicting yourself, and making an objective statement from your subjective experience. Dating apps are best used to setup actual physical dates. They're the digital equivalent of making eye contact at a bar or party, and giving a stranger your contact information. All the while eliminati…

Yes, I agree I have bit of biased view here. I do find it very unnatural to go to blind date with person I barely know. Compared to something lets say bar, it's less unnatural because you both just happened to be there, maybe you both came with some other friends and just happened to start talking to each other. To be honest, I've had better experiences meeting people through non dating online communities than from d…

> non dating online communities

How does the geographical aspect work? Are you mobile enough that you don't mind meeting a person that's a flight away? Or is it primarily online communities that are already geo-bound, like discords/reddits for particular cities?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#289

Post by pksebben » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

kikokikokiko wrote: post #231

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their silly data analysis had a sample that was probably orders of magnitude larger than any cohort an university paper could dream of getting their hands on and yet their sample was incredibly biased despite it being large. A big set of data still churns out bad results. Most of their blog posts did not show the data, how they normalised it, percentage of each group. They just run regression on it and anything wit…

So, after sampling the interactions of 1.51 million people, and analysing the amount of messages an average tall woman receives compared to an average short woman, the conclusion that "taller women, on average, are less attractive to the average male than short women" is invalid? Please, tell me how this is absurd, when it's basically what you see in real life. Or that men that make more money are more attractive to…

because they're all people who signed up for okcupid, who were actively using okcupid to date at the time.

the amount of pressure this puts on the sampling is hard to understate. not only are you looking at a highly truncated set of interpersonal dynamics (what you can tell about someone based on a dating profile is far less than what you can tell by meeting real people in meat space), you're specifically selecting for people who have been as of yet unsuccessful IRL. you're also selecting for people who wish to take a fairly serious shortcut around personal interaction.

given these factors, it would be both crazy and stupid to believe you can generalize about human nature anything you get from a dating app.

as for "what you see in real life", might I suggest that you, yourself, are also constrained to a perspective that doesn't necessarily match other people's perspectives, and that maybe, just maybe, you are also seeing a biased sample of the world which is both the result and cause of difficulties with interpersonal interactions?

Re: Never pay for online dating (2010)

#290

Post by pksebben » Tue, Oct 11, 2022, 5:08 PM UTC

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #176

busterarm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"incel" and "black pill" terminology didn't even exist in 2010.

incel was coined in 1997. also the ideology was common well before it hit the mainstream, it just didnt have an official name. any guy in the forums in the early 2k can tell you this people were already there.

can confirm. 4chan was full of the stuff way before it became remotely politicized.