this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
265 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
3084 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghostalmedia 293 points 6 months ago (4 children)

“We’re seeing a greater need for authentic human connections”

I’m going to take a wild guess and wager that this is about increasing engagement by increasing the amount of opening moves that are created on the platform.

Dating sites profit by increasing engagement with the platform, not by getting you an “authentic connection” that gets you off the platform and into a healthy relationship.

There’s a reason people are going analog again. They know these sites are just a thirst trap.

[–] Icaria 142 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Calling it a thirst trap is too innocent. These dating app companies are scum-sucking vampires designed to make most people feel lonely and desperate enough to give them money in perpetuity. People just handed one of the most important and intimate aspects of their lives over to US tech bros, pressured everyone else to do the same, and two whole generations are not just having less sex than their parents, but half of them have never had a long-term relationship as they're approaching 30.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Hah I didn’t even need a dating app for that

[–] Siegfried 14 points 6 months ago

Yeah, fckng amateurs

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Why can't we go back to meeting people on BBS and forums. Shit I met my partner in 2009 on a forum. It was organic and real, no apps, no algorithms just good ol' fashion php with a dash of flame war.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Or just... talk to people IRL? I met my wife at my apartment complex, and plenty more meet their SOs at a local social event or whatever. Go to meetups for stuff you're interested in and talk to people. I trust that way more than dating apps that pair you with strangers given a short bio...

Yeah, talking to people sucks, I get it. I'm quite introverted and need to relax after putting myself out there. When I met my wife, we texted for 2-3 days before I had enough social energy to ask her out on a date, even though I was quite interested in her. She's a little introverted as well, so we're a good match.

Text is way easier for me, but in-person is way more effective. Most of my friends met their SOs in person at some kind of meetup, whether a DND night, tech meetup, or a dance (not a club, that's way too loud). Online worked for my brother, but I just don't see nearly as much success as with in-person meetups, at least among my friends.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

People especially women hate meeting people in public. It's either "inappropriate," or there's music louder than a war playing. There is no in between.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago (10 children)

I'm talking about pretty "safe" settings, like:

  • game night with mutual friends - your and their friends will help keep things on the level
  • co-ed sports (again, with mutual friends)
  • community events, such as at a local library or whatever
  • meetups for interests - often hosted at some local business that does something related to the thing (I'm a dev, so I go to local Rust, Go, Python, and JS meetups on occasion)

In other words, places where people are "forced" to interact doing something that interests them, while around other people that could come to your aid if someone is being creepy. The goal shouldn't be to find a SO (that attracts the wrong type), but to interact with people that share an interest. You should be looking to make friends, and if that blossoms into something more, I guess that's cool too. Don't go into it looking for an SO, go into it looking to engage about something you enjoy.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] makyo 24 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I feel like I saw somewhere that men message dozens of times more women than vice versa. I get their non-nuanced temptation but you can hardly call a system that encourages one gender to incessantly spam the other 'engagement'.

[–] Oderus 24 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I read that men have to send over 110 likes before they get a single response whereas women get 50-60 guys a day messaging them and they act really creepy like sending dick pics.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow 22 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Isnt being approached by creeps part of the 'authentic' experience?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

It's wild to me that anyone would say that sentence and not immediately realize they sound like an emotionless robot. Like damn, who would've thought people have a great need for authentic human connections? Not me!

This kinda shit you hear from people so deep in the world of product marketing is sickening and really shows how disconnected from they are from both reality and the point of selling a good product: benefitting people. I guess I'm just glad to see more stories of people ditching dating apps as they continue to become more predatory and less helpful.

[–] Ultragigagigantic 190 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Isn't this the one thing that made it stand out?

[–] Ghostalmedia 53 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but there is a new CEO, people are leaving the dating apps like crazy now, and they’re probably trying to do some shortsighted BS that will increase engagement now at the expense of eroding the long term health of the product experience.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's ok, they'll make it up with some IA.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 months ago

It’s not changing the default behavior, so it still has it.

Per the article, they’re introducing a new opt-in feature that a woman, enbie, or person looking for same-gender matches can set up - basically a prompt that their matches can reply to.

I think Bumble also used to prevent you from sending multiple messages before getting a reply, but maybe that was a different app... If they still do that in combination with this feature, then I could see this feature continuing to accomplish their mission of empowering women in online dating.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

lol right? And wasn’t it for women to have a safer place to online date?

So they’re basically throwing women under the bus for money. Classy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 6 months ago

Yes, yes it was. It is now basically the same as every other thirst trap out there.

[–] junderwood 128 points 6 months ago (15 children)

One thing I'll say about the old model was that out of all the dating apps, Bumble was the only one where every woman who I met or even just messaged with could hold a conversation. That one requirement of them reaching out first set the bar, and I knew they were making the choice to speak to me out of all the other guys they were drowning in. I ended up with more dates through Bumble than any other app, and even made great friends with some people I didn't romantically click with. Online dating is awful, or was for me, but Bumble was the least awful one of the bunch. The new model sounds not so great.

[–] birdcannon 37 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I met my fiancée on Bumble 4 years ago, but I also created this from my experience on the app:

[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Sorry to embarrass you OP but it's actually spelled "hay." "Hey," is an informal greeting.

[–] birdcannon 36 points 6 months ago (2 children)

No, it’s for horses 🐴

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 6 months ago

To me it's so so. They either texted, we had a conversation and ended up on a date the next week, or they sent a message, i answered, waited for a week to get a "lol".

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (4 children)

really? I haven't used Bumble myself but I've heard stories of guys with inboxes full of women just saying "hi"

[–] Omodi 22 points 6 months ago

In my experience all the women do start with hi however 100% of them engaged with the conversation after that. It felt much better then getting a bunch of matches but most of them ignoring you(understandably).

[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

Bots. Bots everywhere.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Plopp 9 points 6 months ago

Look at Fabio over here.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] jeffw 102 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So… tinder? Every other dating app?

[–] Dragxito 38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bumble was unique because men couldn't make the first move.

[–] jeffw 88 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Right… so now it’s Tinder? Or every other dating app?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago (2 children)

they're all owned by match.com anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] filister 56 points 6 months ago (4 children)

I think we should get a blind match dating app, where we emphasize on the content and not on the visuals. You just add some information about what kind of a person you are, what you are looking for, etc. and after you match and exchange some messages, you can open the pictures.

But dating apps are turning into those cheap e-commerce sites where everyone judges the items by the packaging and no one actually cares about the content. And mind you in a lot of cases the pictures of the packaging are highly exaggerated or from a couple of years, from better times. And you know, no matter how shiny this package is, there would be a day you will need to throw it in the trash and you will need to decide whether to throw the product along or only the package.

Excuse my metaphors.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I can't imagine something more awkward than having to explicitly deny someone based on looks after having a good conversation.

[–] jpreston2005 13 points 6 months ago (16 children)

What, never been catfished before? Had plenty of women do this to me on apps. All their pictures show one person, then they show up as a person and a half. After the date I just tell them "thanks but no thanks, you catfished me."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

I think the standard procedure is to finish the date, and then never text them back

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

I have an inkling that would result in people speedrunning all the stuff up until they can see what someone looks like...

Looks do matter, and everyone has different preferences.

The problem isn't that people are judging people based on only their looks, it's that these companies have tuned their matching algorithms to match people who enjoy each others appearance, and specifically don't like each other as people.

In reality, for a satisfying relationship you need both. It's really hard to be more than friends with someone that physically repulses you, and it's really hard to be more than friends with benefits with someone you don't like as a person.

By specifically tuning their system to only give you one, and never the other, they keep people in the grind. You might be pretty happy using these apps for hookups, but even there the algorithm will actively be working against you stumbling onto someone you might wanna meet more than once, because they want you back to swiping for the next person asap.

The fact remains that the matchmaking industry is doomed to be toxic in a capitalist system, because actually being good at it, also means getting rid of your customers.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Any dating app where both people have to "like"/"swipe right" each other should allow either side to initiate tbh or at least opt out of the stupid matchmaking system and accept all incoming matches.

I was on the dating apps last summer after having been out of the dating pool for 6 years and the current crop of apps are pretty awful for men (amd probably women as well, maybe for difderent reasons). When I used dating sites in the early/mid 2010s most sites let anyone initiate a conversation so you didn't need to worry about the (usually paywalled) "like" system. These days literally everything is a Tinder clone and the only interaction you have with the app is like or dislike. I get why they did it because women receive so much bullshit from unsolicited messages, in my experience it devolved into just mashing the Like button over and over again blindly because it's a shitty numbers game and the odds aren't in your favor. There's no sense reading through detailed profiles and making thoughtful decisions when it's rare to get a match anyways. Easier to like every single profile and then be the one to filter out matches once they come in. If the harassment is going to primarily target women and women are the ones who need to be more selective in their matches, the dating apps should let women be the ones to pick matches, or better yet give each and every user a toggle that lets them accept matches from anyone, because that makes it easier to get over the hurdle of not receiving any matches at all.

I eventually gave in and paid for the Tinder upgrade that lets you like an unlimited amount of times. I just mindlessly mashed the like button until the queue was empty every day. Before long, matches were actually happening. Two months into that nonsense I actually got a perfect match (she sent the first message) and we've been together for 6 months now. I absolutely love her and I'm glad it worked out, but damn was dating on Tinder, Bumble, OKCupid, and POF a horrible experience all around. All owned by the absolutely dreadful Match.com now of course. The prospect of your perfect match being hidden behind a stupid loot box RNG style gacha system is absolute insanity, because that's what it is. You have a limited number of likes and the profiles you get to see are seemingly picked at random.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon 16 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Five bucks says all the first messages from men are asking if the woman chose the bear, and if they answer yes calling them some slur.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Turns out they never do lol

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I used bumble for a bit and saw women's bios that said that they are not making the first step.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Didn't RTFM...

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean on bumble, they did. It’s why I prefer it when I was single. Felt a bit better to allow the women to make the first move as tinder it felt like if you weren’t peacocking in some fashion, you were doing it wrong. Felt better for either gender. Bummer to hear they’re turning into tinder+.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (1 children)

By and large, women on Bumble don't make the first move. Opening with "Hi" isn't a move, which is what many women on Bumble do to qualify the app's requirement that the woman speaks first.

I've lost track of how many matches I've had on Bumble where they didn't quite get the point of the app, and would open with something like "Impress me". Like, there's a hundred other apps you could use if you don't actually want to make the first move, why use the ONE where you're supposed to if you're not going to do it?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›