Dating apps shouldn't exist. Period.

No good can come from letting a company become load-bearing in an activity humans were able to do for free since time immemorial - find a partner.

(Yes I'm aware some traditional societies had/have professional matchmakers)

▲

bongoman42 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Dating apps are really good for women, particularly young women. Several of my women friends have said they can have a decent partner for an evening or a weekend with as little as 30 mins of time investment.

	▲	triceratops an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think it was particularly hard for young women to hook up pre-dating-apps. If we're saying dating apps are actually only hookup apps, that's a different story. However everyone, including the apps themselves, sees them as a way, or more commonly these days, the only way, to find long-term love. They are two different problems and the latter shouldn't involve apps.

▲

lesuorac 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So we should ban recreational kickball?

Seems foolish to me to ban technology from dating given how much time people invest into it.

	▲	triceratops 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html In any case this is a non-sequitur. Recreational kickball isn't a dating app. I don't think it's possible legally to "ban technology" from the dating space. "Dating apps should not exist" was aspirational, not a call for a legal ban.
	▲	general1465 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We are already banning scammers wherever we can. What is a difference between dating app and a scam? I can't see any.

▲

tpm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Finding a partner was never free, even if no money was involved, at least one of the partners has to invest and demonstrate the resilience and commitment, that involves time and often also money like paying the bar tab for the date in the simplest case.

(and yes, I found my wife by paying for a membership in a dating app. We wouldn't meet otherwise even though we lived in the same city)

▲

triceratops 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> Finding a partner was never free, even if no money was involved,

That's just pedantry, sorry. It's obvious that forming a relationship has non-monetary costs. And the bar tab for the date is the cost of drinks and food. That's the value you receive for the money you spend. Not companionship, or the chance of companionship.

Dates can be a simple walk in the park or on the beach - no spending necessary. That may not land with every potential partner. Some of them will want you to spend, or even spend big, on dates. But then that's also a natural filter of its own, if you want it to be.

▲

tpm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The drinks and food are obviously secondary to the point of the spend in that case though.

It's not pedantry at all. An app is just another option to find someone. You may not like that option, for other people it might even be the only realistic one.

▲

triceratops 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> The drinks and food are obviously secondary to the point of the spend in that case though.

Spending on drinks and food is never required to have the date. It makes the date good but it isn't what makes the date possible. You're going to eat anyway, you may as well eat with someone.

> An app is just another option to find someone

And "find someone" is an activity that largely hasn't cost money for all but the last 15 years of human existence. Relying on apps to make dates possible is dangerous.

> You may not like that option, for other people it might even be the only realistic one

We should examine why that is, or if it's even true. People have never had trouble pairing up before. Or at least, not troubles that have gone away in the dating app era. From the data it isn't obvious that dating apps make the process of partner-finding better - everyone sounds miserable, long-term relationship formation is down. Skepticism about technology that costs money, doesn't even work, and reduces happiness is warranted.

▲

tpm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I respect your resilience to route around the points I'm trying to make. But being a contrarian for the sake of it isn't a good way to engage in fruitful discussions.

> And "find someone" is an activity that largely hasn't cost money for all but the last 15 years of human existence.

That's completely false. Courtship involved money since forever (and also paid dating apps are older than 15 years).

> People have never had trouble pairing up before.

People have always had trouble pairing up.

	▲	triceratops an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> People have always had trouble pairing up. And dating apps have eliminated these problems? I posit that the old problems remain and dating apps have added new ones on top. > Courtship involved money since forever Courtship required, or at least benefited from, demonstrable financial stability. Because that's an attractive quality in a mate for many people. But that's no different from saying "Courtship involved looks\|religion\|health/fertility since forever". Courtship didn't previously require paying an intermediary to engage in. There's a distinction here that you either can't or don't want to understand. > also paid dating apps are older than 15 years But only in the last 15 years have they taken over dating.

▲

rchaud 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Dating apps were fine before the Silicon Valley DAU-maxxing, microtransaction-to-IPO pipeline obssessed twerps entered the picture.

Before swipes, before "buy Premium to un-hide these people who like you" paywalls, dating apps let you message people directly in exchange for showing some Google ads that were unobtrusive.

No surprise at all that an out-of-touch, billionnaire CEO thinks that the missing ingredient is AI.

	▲	triceratops an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's the inevitable fate of any dating app. The entire category has a flawed premise.