Dating: A mysterious constellation of facts

Platform incentives & business models

• Many argue dating apps have structurally misaligned incentives: they profit from keeping people single, engaged, and paying for upsells, not from quickly forming lasting couples.
• Others push back: growth still depends on new users and word‑of‑mouth from success stories, so platforms can’t simply sabotage matches without reputational and churn costs.
• An industry insider claims nobody seriously optimizes for “don’t let users leave after successful matches”; instead they optimize for signups, subscriptions, and engagement, asserting that 99% of matches fail anyway for offline reasons apps can’t control.
• Critics counter that premium features (limited swipes, visibility paywalls, “boosts”) are overtly misaligned with user success and effectively throttle opportunities.

Effectiveness, selection bias, and market structure

• Several note that “dating apps suck” may be biased toward those who have the worst outcomes; many relationships and marriages do come from apps, but satisfied users exit the discourse.
• Others argue that the best prospects (especially “cool” or very attractive people) increasingly avoid apps, turning them into adverse‑selection markets skewed toward lower‑quality matches or extreme personalities.
• A recurring theme: network effects and winner‑take‑all dynamics keep incumbents dominant, and attempts at “better” apps (e.g., older OkCupid) either got bought and “enshittified” or failed to monetize.

User experience, mental health, and paradox of choice

• Frequent complaints: endless swiping, ghosting, dopamine‑driven engagement, and the paradox of choice—too many options, less satisfaction, and “analysis paralysis.”
• Some see apps as functionally similar to gambling: a small minority (“date bacon”) do very well, while the majority have poor experiences but keep trying.
• Multiple commenters say heavy app use is bad for mental health, especially for men getting few matches and for women overwhelmed by low‑effort approaches.

Apps vs in‑person / speed dating

• Speed dating and in‑person approaches provide higher‑bandwidth signals (voice, body language, social proof) and shorter queues of options, which can reduce over‑optimization and FOMO.
• However, speed dating is niche, often treated as entertainment, and uncomfortable for many personalities.
• Several report that matches from real life feel higher‑quality and more enthusiastic than those from apps, even for people who are very successful on apps.

Profiles, photos, and authenticity

• Discussion around where “all those great photos” come from: many people deliberately stage and curate pictures for profiles, sometimes even planning trips for content.
• Some users lack usable photos and feel disadvantaged; others note that profiles are mostly bland and uninformative despite this curation.
• Tension between honest self‑presentation vs “manufactured persona”: honesty may filter better long‑term, but platforms reward marketable profiles.

Broader social and cultural factors

• Commenters emphasize that dating difficulties also come from larger trends: reduced offline social spaces, post‑COVID socialization gaps, workplace dating becoming taboo, and increased polarization over politics/COVID.
• Some argue dating itself has always been frustrating; apps mainly change scale and visibility, not the underlying human problems.