you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 66 points 1 year ago (29 children)

I’ve been curious if a government-run dating app could do better - if its goal is to achieve genuine engagement, not cycles of frustration that boost subscription rates.

This is one of many subjects where capitalist concern ruins the product (and that’s not even something I say as often as others on Lenny)

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Honestly, 90% of the need for dating apps would vanish if people had more free time away from work and well-kept public spaces for entertainment that didn't expect you to purchase anything.

    So rather than a government-run dating app, how about a government-sanctioned 4 day work week and well kept public parks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yet again, low-density exclusionary zoning causing car-dependency (which is why the "third spaces" you're talking about have all-but disappeared) is revealed as the root cause of almost every problem we have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don’t know if I buy that. I think people simply like hiding behind a screen for many interactions these days - including dating.

    Not that Im against your idea but maybe just the 90% part seems inflated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Perhaps, but we would need to put the idea in practice to determine what's the cause/effect relationship here.

    Are people more addicted to their screens because the real world became hostile, or is the real world becoming hostile because people are glued to their screens?

    I'd bet on the first option, but I could be wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    I love my screen time but if there was free ping pong somewhere outside or something I'd go there a lot. Same for rock climbing, board game spaces... I'd get out for a lot. Screen time is a cheap substitute for this real stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I run a social club for gay men, and we've talked about coming up with an app that's run by a non-profit, with social workers on the board, that's designed to actually connect people, not keep them glued to the app. Friendship, dates, activity partners, whatever.

    I don't know why no one has come up with the non-profit model here but if I can get enough steam, we're doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    But even non-profits need to pay for operating costs like salary and cloud fees. Where would you get the funding for that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The app doesn't need to be free, and the revenue stream won't dry up if it actually works because people break up, and there are so many fucking people that even in a zero sum scenario it would take forever to reach saturation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Sorry if I come off like a butthole but I'm both curious yet dubious of the idea. I feel like people probably have thought about it but they probably ran into the same problems you'll run into.

    You didn't quite answer my question. Where are you getting revenue? Eg. Subscription, one-time fees for X, grants, investments, etc?

    Duallingo started like a non-profit but even their revenue with its massive userbase couldn't cover their expenses so they had to compromise hard to keep the lights on. The same happened to Coffee Meets Bagel. Hinge started with the same premise of "this app is meant to be deleted" but they also had to compromise and eventually sold to Match Group.

    Also, I feel like gay men are a unique demographic that has higher that average engagement so Grindr is probably in a uniquely advantaged position to resist enshitification.

    I guess I'm just saying it's probably in practice a cost center like city infrastructure or schools or research, so it might only work without heavy compromises if it's also funded by taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Where are we getting the funds for Lemmy and its instances?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Donations and many self hosted volunteers, helped by the unique nature of the fediverse architecture also distributing burdens, fewer users, and lower computation/storage/availability requirements (compared to a more centralized service like a dating app).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    That's an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.

    Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.

    Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I feel like you haven't provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, "This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large."

    It seems to me that you're implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It's one that isn't very insightful and one that offers little utility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Well the claim was your's and I'm of the opinion that comparing who's hornier isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

    Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.

    Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You said capitalism and summoned your resident anticapitalist. How can I be of assistance, comrade. :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Looking for an anticapitalist on lemmy is like looking for a lesbian at a Teagan and Sara concert. It's not everybody, but it's not a difficult search

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • meh, I dont think thats accurate. I would say "opportunist" is a better fit. Anticapitalists understand how profit extractions works and have a very different view on society. Mostly one that does not work on .world because of the capitalist propaganda machine running in the west.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)