So, why is this the case? The ultimate goal of online dating apps should be to function as a conduit in creating committed relationships, right? Wrong. The realm of online dating has become a multi-billion dollar industry — an industry that profits primarily off of user addiction, especially by keeping its users single. The way that the industry accomplishes this is twofold, relying on qualities of gamification and what psychologist Barry Schwartz refers to as the “paradox of choice.”
The presence of the choice paradox in online dating is perhaps best understood through the analogy of online shopping. Studies have shown that as shoppers are exposed to more options for potential purchases, they are paradoxically less likely to be satisfied with their ultimate decision. As our brains become inundated with a variety of choices, we often experience choice paralysis: An anxiety-induced state that prevents us from making a resounding decision.
On Tinder, the user’s experience of choice overload has become a frequent occurrence. In the emergence of what some are calling “serial swipers,” many users can be seen displaying strong hesitations to commit to a singular option due to fears of missing out on a potentially better one.
The infiltration of the choice paradox into the realm of relationships is especially dangerous. Unlike the case of online shopping, users aren’t choosing between products, they’re choosing between people. The resulting world of online dating has become a breeding ground for objectification, sexual harassment and insecurity, as choices are increasingly influenced by abundance and appearances rather than genuine compatibility.
The instant gratification offered by each ‘match’ causes the idea of exclusivity to appear unsettling, with many individuals remaining addicted to these apps even in committed relationships. Specifically, 30% of Tinder users are married, and another 12% are in relationships. Because of this, the online dating world has become a hotbed for cheating and noncommittal sex. Users find themselves immersed in an endless, twisted game, where matches and hookups function as points to keep score.
I wouldn't say that the sexual harassment is the fault of the app. Other than that I don't see a problem. Seems like a skill issue lest you try to control how people relate to one another. Any sort of paradox of choice can be resolved by just choosing or just deleting the app. There's no good, orthodox, leftist way to use Twitter, you just probably shouldn't. There's no good, orthodox leftist way to smoke cigarettes or gamble either. Play the game or get out of the way.
The only argument I see from my point of view is an argument about the algorithm being anti-competitive, but the idea that having a bunch of choice is bad seems weak.
doesn't the dating app format literally do that with its users
I suppose. In my mind, once you match you're just texting each other. You can use gifs, pictures, voice, facetime, or whatever, but it's a 1 on 1 conversation. You can move to other apps, get their phone number, or just agree to meet up in person. The alternative, which I would have called controlling how people relate to one another, is like government-mandated girlfriends or arranged marriages.
There are a lot of users who never "match" with anyone from what I understand. While someone I knew worked at OKCupid up until a few years ago, the metric used to tune the matchmaking engine were rebalanced to generate fewer matches (which builds word of mouth and got them bought by Match) to generating more revenue with mostly accidental matches.
If the algorithm is manipulative that's annoying and worthy of reprimand. I think even in a fair format, there's still going to be a lot of profiles with few to 0 matches and I'd call it a skill issue. Take better pictures, have funnier intros, have better fashion, take better care of your hair, and join c/fitness or lose out to someone who does.
I actually get a decent amount of people to swipe right on me. The problem that I have found on these apps is that, it doesn't show me those women. I just get a constant stream of petite white girls with all the same instagram picture, which is fine. That is a perfectly valid life style and there is nothing wrong with that. I just never get shown the type of woman whom apparently I'm their type. Unless I pay of course.
That's cringe and no doubt profit driven. It doesn't appear like that's the focus of the article though. I want to be real slow in criticizing the format because the article ends like, "So, do these claims that the “dating apocalypse” is upon us actually hold any validity? The answer is complicated. While the rise of social media and online dating apps have perpetuated a strong hook-up culture, a growing awareness of the toxicity of these platforms has also created an equally strong counter-movement." Like there was some preferable culture that needs protection and preservation against the ills of young people shirking off the responsibility of chastity for the good of society. Their counter-movement is no doubt some kind of cringefest full of Toilet Paper USA chuds. It'd be neat if the state seized Tinder and washed it of all the profit seeking, but it seems so shitty to get rid of the format of swiping and matching for the "good" of a society that I fucking despise anyway.
I think we're coming from the same place overall. I think the format is worthy of criticism but the idea that dating apps are the dating apocalypse is complete nonsense. What I think the criticism in this article really does is paper over the fact that the physical environment people live in is completely devoid of joy. Completely unwalkable. No shade. No community culture. I would agree that much of the criticism of the format is misplaced.
I agree. I hope you wouldn't think so little of me to otherwise defend a billion dollar company, comrade. Axiomatically it is bad. The environment is made shit for the sake of private enterprise. May God damn America. But a meat market of consenting adults belongs in the same category as a casino or a distillery to me. I just want you to be able to take the train there instead of a car
I think your position is very understandable. I do think a strong element in this criticism is coming from the conservative right, and it is important for leftists to be aware their positioning is attempting to set the tone of the issue for the mainstream.
OKCupid's matchmaking circa 2009-2011 could have been considered "fair" from my 2nd hand knowledge. They had a pretty detailed model for the era which used a question & answer section with hundreds and hundreds of prompts, with no limits to how many each user could respond to. It literally got the person I knew who worked there married, before they worked there, which is why they wanted to work there (edit to say they celebrated 14 years/10 years of marriage together and I consider their relationship the most solid one in my social circles).
They then saw it reorganized by Match (which acquired it specifically because of the fairness and good brand it had acquired via word of mouth for being fair). And everything went to shit. Matches dropped by orders of magnitude, revenues soared, account deletions plummeted, and abandoned profiles skyrocketed.
One of the many problem with "dating" (matchmaking) apps is that they don't have a path to profitability through forming matches, really. They can do that for a while but the ultimate goal is just to get a large enough userbase to get bought by Match. Match's formula is really, really simple. To the point that there are dozens of clones unaffiliated with Match who try to do the same thing, they just don't have the existing userbase and presumably not enough runway to run it at a loss, advertise, and generate good word of mouth (plus the number of people not already soured by previous dating apps is probably dwindling compared to the pre-Match acquisitions era).
sUrViVaL oF tHe FiTtEsT :frothingfash:
What else could it be? It's not like production where you can have band together to make a better world, a relationship is personal and private. If you and your friend like the same attractive person, it's not like you can unionize and demand more attention. You could be in the presence of justice, hell, you could have brought about communism by yourself and created a utopia on earth, but if they don't think you're attractive then oh well! You could be in a dating app, a bar, a social club, or anywhere else and it's still the case.
the culture of texting on a dating app and societal expectations on both parties exerts its own pressure.
I think the proposed alternative is arguably comparable to arranged marriage but more in terms that what they want is a service that finds too compatible people who want roughly the same things out of a relationship and introduce them in a way that stimulates conversation and helps break the ice.
I don't think anyone (here) was saying that we should just pick people and force them to date/marry each other
I wasn't accusing anyone of saying anything. I apologize if it came off that way.
My point of view is that dating and relationships are competitive because there's no proletariat that can band together to get you into a relationship. It's simply between you and the other person. So if you can't overcome the pressure from the culture of texting and societal expectation, then you'll lose out to someone who can and therefore it's a skill issue. I'd even say, in practice, there are other dating apps specifically for g*mers and Christians. I think Hinge's slogan is that it's the app that's "designed to be deleted" and you have to make a comment to swipe right on somebody. I think there are also professional services that do that sort of matching for you as well as speed dating, bars, etc. where you could meet people. Even if the prevalence of dating apps increases, it's not like it's impossible to meet somebody face to face first. If that alters society then fuck the society the way I see it.