It’s fascinating that profits hinge on providing a slightly below par experience on most forms of social media, dating apps included. Facebook et al require it for rage interactions while dating apps need it to maintain a userbase to populate and pay for the service.
To be honest I don’t think it does need to keep the users who succeed to stay profitable. It’s just they can’t handle the numbers not growing every year. There are always new people trying to find a date, and I think a service that wasn’t greedy could make something that works for the users and the company both.
In this case, you’re talking about a chicken turning back into an egg. The chicken has already grown large thanks to massive venture capital loans, server costs, and the board that appeared upon its explosion guiding it toward further engorgement. Dating apps don’t, by definition, have to partake of ultracapitalism, but every single major example unequivocally does.
Most of them were acquired by match.com, to even avoid the chance of any competition. How regulators allow this monopoly should be a question for criminal court (similar to many other industries, like letting facebook purchase instagram and whatsapp many years ago)
The chicken to egg metaphore is perfect, though they could be forced to change with strong regulation. Monopolies should be either broken up to allow true competition, or should only be allowed to operate as thightly regulated utilities (like electricity distribution networks).
It’s fascinating that profits hinge on providing a slightly below par experience on most forms of social media, dating apps included. Facebook et al require it for rage interactions while dating apps need it to maintain a userbase to populate and pay for the service.
Love me some lemmy.
To be honest I don’t think it does need to keep the users who succeed to stay profitable. It’s just they can’t handle the numbers not growing every year. There are always new people trying to find a date, and I think a service that wasn’t greedy could make something that works for the users and the company both.
In this case, you’re talking about a chicken turning back into an egg. The chicken has already grown large thanks to massive venture capital loans, server costs, and the board that appeared upon its explosion guiding it toward further engorgement. Dating apps don’t, by definition, have to partake of ultracapitalism, but every single major example unequivocally does.
Most of them were acquired by match.com, to even avoid the chance of any competition. How regulators allow this monopoly should be a question for criminal court (similar to many other industries, like letting facebook purchase instagram and whatsapp many years ago)
The chicken to egg metaphore is perfect, though they could be forced to change with strong regulation. Monopolies should be either broken up to allow true competition, or should only be allowed to operate as thightly regulated utilities (like electricity distribution networks).
What I’m getting at is a newcomer to the scene. The old dragons can die out and no one would shed a tear.
Bring in the disrupters. Rip out the old guard with the ferocity deserved of the handle on your greatest enemy’s anal beads.
Ouch! I just imagined someone yanking out a strand of anal beads in the way they’d try to pull start a lawnmower.
Unlikely since match.com has monopolized the industry.
We need a massive breakup of all the monopolies in modern day life.
There is https://github.com/Alovoa/alovoa I haven’t taken a dive yet. I’m curious how much activity there is on it.
I checked it out but there was nothing in my area.
…so it’s 100% dudes