Online Dating
Online dating apps come under fire as users describe them as skewed toward a small minority of highly attractive men, rife with scams and bots, and structurally incentivized to keep people single and paying. Some argue that better profile “marketing,” seasonal or more curated platforms, and offline social structures (clubs, communities, matchmaking) are more effective than trying to “engineer” a fix with CRM‑style tools and stricter filters. Others counter that, despite flaws and perverse incentives, apps have become a primary way couples meet and can work well for those who adjust expectations, invest effort, and avoid misogynistic or fatalistic narratives.
Context & overall reaction
- Many find the piece interesting but see it as an “engineer mindset” applied to a messy social problem, with a fixation on systems (CRM, scoring, filters) that risks dehumanizing people.
- Several readers perceive “incel”/misogynistic undertones (e.g., “body count,” hypergamy framing, talk of “reducing competition” via high male fees).
- Others defend the author as simply frustrated and analytical, not uniquely authoritative on dating.
How online dating differs from offline
- One camp: apps largely expose existing dating inequalities; top 20% (or fewer) of men get the bulk of attention, average men struggle, women experience apparent abundance but little commitment.
- Counter-camp: offline dating is different because pools are small and finite, expectations are calibrated, and people commit to “good enough” matches instead of endlessly optimizing.
- Paradox of choice and “infinite” swipe pools are repeatedly blamed for dissatisfaction and churn.
Market design, incentives, and business models
- Strong criticism that for‑profit apps are incentivized to keep users single and frustrated (shadow‑banning, boosts, super‑likes, opaque algorithms).
- Reports from someone who worked at a large dating company: huge scam/bot problem (especially “female” profiles), high‑risk payments, and dominance of a few big mobile apps.
- Suggestions: seasonal apps to avoid “reverse network effects,” limits on daily profiles, co‑op or federated/nonprofit platforms, or state‑run systems focused on equity.
Gender dynamics and norms
- Repeated claims of skewed ratios (many more men than women) and women’s ability to be choosy; men report feeling like “beggars.”
- Others push back, noting average men can and do succeed, and that many complaints are suffused with misogyny and lack of self‑reflection.
- Debate over what “attractiveness” really is: looks vs effort, personality, text skills, and profile “marketing.”
Strategies, experiences, and “hacking” dating
- Some men describe “numbers game” tactics (thousands of approaches or heavy profile optimization) leading to eventual success.
- Others find online dating mostly yields casual/short‑term encounters; long‑term partners were met via friends, work, or hobbies.
- Several emphasize self‑development, confidence, and offline interaction as more reliable than trying to engineer a perfect app.