Tinder, Hinge, and their corporate owner keep rape under wraps
Online Dating as “Second Job” and Structural Issues
- Many describe app-based dating as exhausting “work,” especially for men facing extremely skewed attention toward a small group of highly attractive profiles.
- The swipe mechanic creates a numbers game: constant pipeline management, ghosting, shallow judgments, and burnout.
- Several argue that online dating poorly captures personality and lacks contextual bonding that real-life settings (school, work, hobbies) provide.
- Others counter that for some groups (e.g., gay men), online dating has long been the primary, and often successful, way to meet partners.
Decline of Offline Meeting and Third Places
- Some older commenters note all their lasting relationships came from offline encounters and question if it’s still possible today.
- Replies stress it is harder now, especially for non-drinkers, due to loss of “third places” (churches, community centers) and social taboos around workplace romance.
- Others insist there are still venues (bars, sports, clubs, libraries) but acknowledge many people are too exhausted or wary to engage.
Business Incentives, Dark Patterns, and Monopoly Concerns
- Strong criticism of Match Group’s incentives: profit-maximizing design that allegedly keeps most users single and frustrated to prevent churn.
- Examples cited: paywalls around “likes you,” deliberately rationed matches, and “Skinner box” reward schedules.
- Some see this as akin to casino-style manipulation and argue for regulation of such dark patterns; others warn overregulation and vague definitions are dangerous.
- There is nostalgia for pre-acquisition OkCupid and suggestions for nonprofit or matchmaker-style services, but network effects and convenience favor the current dominant apps.
- Facebook Dating is mentioned as a “loss leader” alternative with more generous, free features, though its user base skews older.
Handling Rape Reports: Apps vs. Legal System
- Central debate: what responsibility should dating apps have when they receive rape or assault reports?
- One camp: apps should act on patterns of complaints (especially multiple, unconnected reports), curate their user base, and cooperate aggressively with law enforcement.
- Opposing camp: apps lack investigative capacity, bans are easily evaded, and auto-banning on unverified reports invites abuse (revenge, coordinated false reports).
- Some insist any serious allegation should go to police, with apps responding to law-enforcement-backed signals or a government-run database; others note rape is heavily underreported and legal processes are slow.
- There is concern about defamation risk and about proposals to legally force platforms to notify users about banned “rapists” without due process.
Match Group’s Safety Practices and Accountability
- The article’s findings spur criticism that Match Group underinvested in safety, allowed repeatedly reported users to rejoin easily, and laid off internal safety teams.
- Commenters see this as an example of how large organizations enable decisions—minimizing safety to protect growth and liability—that individuals might consider unethical.
- Some argue apps’ responsibility ends at the app boundary; others say their scale and data give them unique power to prevent repeated harm.
Ideas for Alternatives and Public-Service Models
- Proposals include: open-source, nonprofit, or federated (ActivityPub/Matrix-based) dating platforms; incorporating reputation or post-meeting feedback; and government involvement (databases, antitrust, or safety mandates).
- Counterpoints emphasize non-technical barriers: network effects, bots/scammers, and the fact that many core problems stem from human psychology and modern social structures, not just ownership or code.