> Even though it did not have any business relationship with OkCupid, the third-party data recipient asked the company to share large datasets of OkCupid user photos and related data with it because OkCupid’s founders were financial investors in the third party. OkCupid provided the third party with access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos as well as location and other information without placing any formal or contractual restrictions on how the information could be used, the FTC alleged.
I wonder what is this third party that the complaint does not list by name?
The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc.
"In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."
no. but it seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones (think Project Insight from Captain America:Winter Soldier).
I'm not sure privacy violations are the biggest concern here.
> seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones
Clarifai's usecase is around unstructured image data search which is fairly useful in cleansing and less so in targeting.
More fundamentally, almost the entire tech industry touched Project Maven - it was massive. And that was just 1 of multiple initiatives led by the DoD.
And most other great and regional powers like China, Russia, Japan, France, India, South Korea, Turkiye, etc have all been working on similar projects for a decade.
It doesn't matter what country you live in - no nation will leave capabilities on the table. Heck, a highschooler with knowledge of OpenCV and the Google Earth API can build targeting capabilities similar to what superpowers had a decade ago.
It's 2026 - the Ukraine War started in 2014; the Syrian, Libyan, and Yemeni Civil Wars in 2011; the Congo War reignited in 2015; the Afghan War continued until 2022; the Myanmar Civil War reignited in 2021; etc - there has now been over a decade of constant development of dual use technologies in both conflicts and civilian applications.
Technology has always had a military component - heck, much of the "civilian" technologies in the 1990s-2000s were refined and tested thanks to Gulf War 1 and the Yugoslav Wars.
All of these sites do shady shit. I'm so glad I'm no longer single.
I signed up for eHarmony with a unique email address dedicated to that site. After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened. It was a unique account that I had not used anywhere else just for this specific reason, and my hunch was justified.
I do this for every site I sign up for. I have a 'catch all' email address, so I can put whateverIwant@mydomain.com and the emails will get to my inbox. So now I know who is selling or leaking my email address. So far it's been very few, but I also don't sign up for new sites very often.
After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened.
Facebook is also guilty of this.
I set up a Facebook account for a relative around 2006. The e-mail address is name_facebook@ a domain that I control.
Every six months or so, Facebook will send out almost daily e-mails for a month saying "Person x commented on your post!" or some variant. You know how I know this relative of mine didn't make a new post?
They were good 15 years ago. As with all things, it went to shit when Match.com started consolidating everything and the bean counters realized that a quality product was not as profitable.
Surprised it took this long to get litigation. So many people complaining about how crap dating sites are, but no one thought to realize the site itself was the problem and fell into the whole "looksmaxxing" grift. Some people really will do anything except admit that rich people are corrupt.
> The FTC said OkCupid users were never told their information - including nearly 3 million photos, demographic information and location data - would be shared in 2014 with Clarifai, a facial recognition technology company, contrary to OkCupid's privacy policies.
Throwaway account. I tried these sites a couple of times each in the past (the UK versions at least). I'm married now and fortunately don't have to deal with "the dating scene" and how awful it is/was.
When I signed up for Match, about ten minutes into the process my account suddenly changed to that of another man including different photo, descriptions, orientation etc. I don't know why this happened but it was absolutely mortifying and an outrage Match did this. I dread to think how shit their code has to be to somehow merge accounts or whatever happened. I deleted "my" account immediately.
I imagine that counts as excessive sharing of personal data.
I met my current wife on OKC in 2010, before online dating became an utter cesspool.
I've been out of the dating scene for 16 years now, but based on what I see on social media, I think online dating sucks today for three reasons.
1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions. It doesn't help that people argue over whether Tinder is a dating app or a hook-up app.
2. I'm not sure how to put this without seeming misogynistic, but some women greatly over-value themselves. Or at the very least, they have out-dated ideas of courtship. Some of them expect to be taken out to $50+/plate restaurants on a first date, while many men think women are just trying to score free meals. It's hard to make relationships kick off when they begin so adversarial.
3. Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail. They can give you matches they know are bad since it keeps you as a serial dater and on their app. They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
> Criticizes pathological behavior of some men openly
> Puts a disclaimer before criticizing pathological behavior of some women
Nothing will improve until we as men stop gatekeeping ourselves from stating facts openly, without apologies. Women can be very shitty, often are, and that has to be said without the need to preface it or soften the blow.
> They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?
They used to have a sister site. The had these kind of hilarious animated ads that made the whole thing seem so logical. One ad targeted at women and the other at men, both claiming that money meant you only got serious requests. I wish I could find those ads, they were classic.
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
You've identified the problem but failed to adequately describe a solution.
The matchmakers need to make money, even to just pay for the costs of running the service.
A monthly subscription to use the service creates the perverse incentive to give bad matches. A one-time fee makes unsuccessful users feel cheated out of their money. A "pay us once you get married" option is ripe for abuse.
Even if the service is free and paid for by selling ads, you'd run into the same problem of the subscription model: They'd be incentivized to keep you perpetually single so you see more ads.
The reverse incentive is used by match makers. It works well for people seeking marriage since there is a legal endpoint to be reached that can’t be faked and is meant to be permanent.
I have no idea if they do this, but they should partially or fully sponsor weddings of couples that met on their service in exchange for a small ad at the venue. There's a captive audience of potentially lots of single people watching two people that met on their service get married. It's a great advertising opportunity. I'd have happily put a "This wedding brought to you by OK-Cupid" banner at the bar at my wedding for $500 or $1000 towards the open bar.
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
1. Network effects. An app isn't like a new local business where people will naturally wander in. They may already exist but the market's captured everyone on the skinner box services
2. App stores. The deeper you look into the things needed to advertise as a mobile app, the more obvious it becomes. You need milliions up front just to be featured in your critical launch time. If you don't, you fall into #1 and it's hard to recover from the "it's so empty" early impressions.
3. As you said, any success despite #1 and #2 is destined to fail. ad won't make that money up, so the only viable idea is relying on a premium or subscription model. But paid models in the era of "free" mobile apps is a hard sell unless you can guarantee success. And dating is anything but guaranteed.
That said other models have been tried to correct the issues with the big apps. Limiting matches, reversing the gender dynamics, based around special interests, etc. The only one I think I saw any kind of success from is one tailored towards rich/famous people meeting other rich/famous people (surprise, surprise).
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions.
In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to online dating.
My experience with OKCupid was that women must lie to get laid, moreso than men. A man can state "just want sex" on his profile and it is socially neutral. A woman who posts such a thing has social consequences.
Or starting a job; wanting to advance in the office; become an entrepreneur; wanting to go into politics; wanting to go into the clergy; wanting to become president; wanting to visit islands; wanting run casinos; wanting to run beuaty pagents...
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
Honestly, that's fine. The issue was when the "get laid" app suddenly decided to be the "find serious relationship" app. Makes about as much sense as Roblox thinking about a dating app, but I guess the MBA's told them it brings more monies.
> but some women greatly over-value themselves.
It's overblown, but the high level concept of "women are picky" the inevitable course of nearly all dating aspects. Evolutionary wise, women need to be picky due to their long gestation period, and men aren't as picky because they can copulate with dozens of women over the course of days. Add in a caste system and the pareto principle, and even scenes from millenia ago aren't as different from 2026 Tinder as you'd think.
But of course your last point only polarizes this existing natural phenomenon.
>Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail.
This is why we needed to litigate these sites yesterday. But we were too busy fighting amongst ourselves, like serfs warring in the streets while the kings sit in an ivory tower. This is an issue only regulation can fix. The human element shouln't be sold off to capitalism, especially in this time where people are supposedly concerned about falling birth rates.
When you say “$50+/plate” are you saying the dinner itself or each dish? Either way, (in the US) that is not considered a particularly expensive meal for an adult taking someone on a date. In 2026 you should expect $100-$200 bill with drinks basically anywhere. Going out to dinner is not cheap. $100 is actually a great deal unless we’re talking chain restaurants.
If you don’t want to spend that every first date, then I would suggest not making dinner the first date. Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
Fair question. When I think "$50/plate", I'm thinking $50 for just the dinner main course, not including drinks, appetizer, or dessert.
> Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date. They want to be wined and dined and treated like a princess right off the bat. They think they're a prize to be won simply by being a woman.
Though I truly believe that most women are not like this. However, some are, and their attitude is probably what keeps them perpetually single.
If somebody gave me shade for a casual first date before we’ve even met in person that’s not someone I’d want to take on a date anyway. Not even saying they’re wrong or unreasonable, just think that if someone is vocally complaining about that maybe we aren’t a good fit.
You clearly think it’s poor behavior so why are you worried about striking out with them?
My reading of the comment wasn't that the problem is that people expect dinner to be $50+/plate, it's that people expect dates to be dinner, and $50+/plate.
The point is really that there's an expectation mismatch around costs that shrinks everyone's pool of daters.
For actual numbers in Canada, the Globe and Mail recently commissioned a survey showing about 47% of singles would not be willing to spend more than 50 CAD (36 usd) on a first date - and that 24% of singles think the man should pay, compared to 0.2% of singles thinking the woman should pay. So you can see the mismatch if you think about the Venn diagrams there.
You've missed the point. The point is that the women in question demand it. There is no shortage of women on social media ranting about how lazy or cheap men are who want to do coffee or drinks for a first date. Or especially a walk. If you suggest a walk for a first date there's a strong chance you'll never hear from her again.
So, you've saved yourself the time and expense of a shared walk and two cups of coffee. Isn't that a win? Unless you are just looking to get laid, in which case, suck it up and buy dinner, I guess.
Yes, but the point is that people are not successful on these apps because of those expectations. A lot of people have sort of let the whole online dating thing go straight to their head. And now, theyd rather die alone than be slightly uncomfortable for a few minutes.
the definition requires "contempt", but it has been diluted to mean any statement that merely points out of corrosive behavior
additionally, many of the statements are actually class based and not inherently gendered, for example, we would call out a man trying to date for free meals too, but since its seen in contexts about women, its stated in reference to that gender, masquerading as contempt and misogyny, but not highlighting what is in the observer's heart and mind whatsoever.
Countries are starting to criminalize ‘misogyny’ which includes interrupting women during meetings. I think Brazil is in the process of enacting such laws. These are usually being bootstrapped on civil right and hate speech laws.
Do I interpret the settlement proposal correctly that the unlawfully-transmitted copies, and any training outcomes derived from them, are not ordered purged?
No class action or fines for discrimination based on gender? OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
>OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.
Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.
In the 80's a club near me got into some sort of trouble for that so they switched to skirt night - only a tiny number of men were willing to wear a skirt to get in free.
Aren't they going out of business in large numbers? I'm not sure how much of that has to do with the dating scene as much as it has to do with younger people drinking less though.
I think all attempts to explain "why <market based on discretionary spending by young people> is failing" that don't come to the conclusion "we're macro-economically cooked" are wrong.
I’m almost certain these dating apps, including Hinge and Bumble are creating loads of good-looking fake women profiles to attract male users and keep their platforms “sticky”. There are suspicious telltale signs like location downtown when nobody says they live downtown in my area. The same responses and prompts across multiple profiles. It’s equivalent to them cooking their books, but with vanity metrics.
I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a fucked up admission.
They did tons of data analysis across all aspects of profiles, and had a popular blog where they published the results.
They were heavily involved in researching what factors more reliably led to not just better matches, but better relationships -- when you disabled your account, they'd ask if it was because you'd met someone through OkC and ask you to pick who, if you were willing to share.
I don't think there was anything fucked up about it, as long as it was all anonymized and at scale. Trying to understand what messaging strategies worked better or worse could be a major part of figuring out how to improve matches.
Like, one obvious factor could be to match people who send lots of long messages with lots of questions with each other, while a separate set matches people who's messaging style is one sentence at a time. I'm not saying that would necessarily work well, but it's not crazy to research if NLP analysis of messages can produce additional potential compatibility signals.
The whole point of OkC back then was to try to develop as many data-based signals as possible to improve matches.
If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.
I did like that they shared a lot of hard data with insightful analysis. At the time, there were a lot of narratives about what women wanted and it was refreshing to see them post what was actually working. I remember being skeptical about anything being private online at the time, but I guess that perspective wasn't as pervasive.
makes me wonder if the person you went on a date with cherry-picked you due to your data. (anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!)
If only they had the long term data too. It might make for easier discussions on the first date, but maybe there's more to opposites attracting/different roles in a relationship.
I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nice) dates out of it that never went anywhere.
> As part of a settlement, OkCupid, operated by Dallas-based Humor Rainbow, Inc., and Match Group Americas, which provides services for Humor Rainbow, will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.
Because everyone else is "allowed" to misrepresent its privacy policies.
They should also go after Grindr which--according to Gavin Newsom's official campaign X account--reveals information about Newson's political oppponents
>"As part of a settlement, OkCupid [...] will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies."
>"Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting: [...]"
every company should already be "prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies" and the collection/controls stuff.
12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation, and we get "please dont do that again". (dad voice: im not surprised, just disappointed)
>12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation
To be fair, the complaint only alleges one instance of data transfer, so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. It's like if your nemesis died under mysterious circumstances, a journalist asked you whether you killed him, you said no, and it turned out you did. Is it a lie? Yeah. Could it be reasonably characterized as "intentional obstruction of police investigation"? Hardly.
>so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
i wasnt clear in my comment, but i meant it in the sense of "12 years to resolve this one incident".
>Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users.
i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
The US Government routinely treats corporations with kid gloves. When they're found to be breaking the law, the company usually says "oopsie doopsie, did we do that??" and the government in turn settles with "naughty, naughty, just don't do it again!" It's like kindergarten punishment. But if you or I break federal law, it's PMITA Prison for us.
When match was illegally allowed to buy okcupid an then tinder in violation of antitrust laws is when I realized how thoroughly libertarian propaganda has won and is destroying the country. I mean we've now fully legalized gambling and bribery of politicians for the sake of fake freedom. We're cooked.
Key quote:
> Even though it did not have any business relationship with OkCupid, the third-party data recipient asked the company to share large datasets of OkCupid user photos and related data with it because OkCupid’s founders were financial investors in the third party. OkCupid provided the third party with access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos as well as location and other information without placing any formal or contractual restrictions on how the information could be used, the FTC alleged.
I wonder what is this third party that the complaint does not list by name?
The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc.
"In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."
[0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OkCupid-MatchCo...
So, your dating photos were going to a government contractor involved with AI killer drone technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarifai#Military_work
> Their technology was used by Unilever, Ubisoft, BuzzFeed
And apparently also your deodorant, Assassin's Creed, and tabloid rags as well. That's what I call variety.
I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.
> I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.
Outstanding observation! Class action suit in the making. Only lawyers get rich, but still could hurt the offenders financially.
Look, I like the occasional $2 checks in the mail. For now, I can buy a candy bar with it.
Here in Canada, even a chocolate bar has now gone up to $3 at Walmart
Just guessing, but the third party company did not break a law or go against their privacy policy.
Reuters says it is "Clarifai" if you wanted to know.
https://www.reuters.com/world/match-group-settles-us-ftc-cla...
no. but it seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones (think Project Insight from Captain America:Winter Soldier).
I'm not sure privacy violations are the biggest concern here.
> seems possible, or even likely, that they used the pictures to train targeting for military drones
Clarifai's usecase is around unstructured image data search which is fairly useful in cleansing and less so in targeting.
More fundamentally, almost the entire tech industry touched Project Maven - it was massive. And that was just 1 of multiple initiatives led by the DoD.
And most other great and regional powers like China, Russia, Japan, France, India, South Korea, Turkiye, etc have all been working on similar projects for a decade.
It doesn't matter what country you live in - no nation will leave capabilities on the table. Heck, a highschooler with knowledge of OpenCV and the Google Earth API can build targeting capabilities similar to what superpowers had a decade ago.
It's 2026 - the Ukraine War started in 2014; the Syrian, Libyan, and Yemeni Civil Wars in 2011; the Congo War reignited in 2015; the Afghan War continued until 2022; the Myanmar Civil War reignited in 2021; etc - there has now been over a decade of constant development of dual use technologies in both conflicts and civilian applications.
Technology has always had a military component - heck, much of the "civilian" technologies in the 1990s-2000s were refined and tested thanks to Gulf War 1 and the Yugoslav Wars.
Maybe privacy concerns aren't your biggest concerns, but they are for the FTC for a case like this.
All of these sites do shady shit. I'm so glad I'm no longer single.
I signed up for eHarmony with a unique email address dedicated to that site. After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened. It was a unique account that I had not used anywhere else just for this specific reason, and my hunch was justified.
I do this for every site I sign up for. I have a 'catch all' email address, so I can put whateverIwant@mydomain.com and the emails will get to my inbox. So now I know who is selling or leaking my email address. So far it's been very few, but I also don't sign up for new sites very often.
After wasting 6 months, I chose to delete my account.
Lo and behold, soon spam started to show up on this account, as if the floodgates had been opened.
Facebook is also guilty of this.
I set up a Facebook account for a relative around 2006. The e-mail address is name_facebook@ a domain that I control.
Every six months or so, Facebook will send out almost daily e-mails for a month saying "Person x commented on your post!" or some variant. You know how I know this relative of mine didn't make a new post?
He's been dead since 2011.
They were good 15 years ago. As with all things, it went to shit when Match.com started consolidating everything and the bean counters realized that a quality product was not as profitable.
Surprised it took this long to get litigation. So many people complaining about how crap dating sites are, but no one thought to realize the site itself was the problem and fell into the whole "looksmaxxing" grift. Some people really will do anything except admit that rich people are corrupt.
My experience was poor more than 15 years ago so ymmv
This article has more information - looks like this was from 12 years ago https://www.reuters.com/world/match-group-settles-us-ftc-cla...
> The FTC said OkCupid users were never told their information - including nearly 3 million photos, demographic information and location data - would be shared in 2014 with Clarifai, a facial recognition technology company, contrary to OkCupid's privacy policies.
Thanks - we've put that link in the toptext as well.
Throwaway account. I tried these sites a couple of times each in the past (the UK versions at least). I'm married now and fortunately don't have to deal with "the dating scene" and how awful it is/was.
When I signed up for Match, about ten minutes into the process my account suddenly changed to that of another man including different photo, descriptions, orientation etc. I don't know why this happened but it was absolutely mortifying and an outrage Match did this. I dread to think how shit their code has to be to somehow merge accounts or whatever happened. I deleted "my" account immediately.
I imagine that counts as excessive sharing of personal data.
I had my OKC account hacked or merged to in the same fashion. I've never had this happen before with any online service.
I met my current wife on OKC in 2010, before online dating became an utter cesspool.
I've been out of the dating scene for 16 years now, but based on what I see on social media, I think online dating sucks today for three reasons.
1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions. It doesn't help that people argue over whether Tinder is a dating app or a hook-up app.
2. I'm not sure how to put this without seeming misogynistic, but some women greatly over-value themselves. Or at the very least, they have out-dated ideas of courtship. Some of them expect to be taken out to $50+/plate restaurants on a first date, while many men think women are just trying to score free meals. It's hard to make relationships kick off when they begin so adversarial.
3. Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail. They can give you matches they know are bad since it keeps you as a serial dater and on their app. They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
> Criticizes pathological behavior of some men openly
> Puts a disclaimer before criticizing pathological behavior of some women
Nothing will improve until we as men stop gatekeeping ourselves from stating facts openly, without apologies. Women can be very shitty, often are, and that has to be said without the need to preface it or soften the blow.
> They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.
naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?
https://whatsyourprice.com
They used to have a sister site. The had these kind of hilarious animated ads that made the whole thing seem so logical. One ad targeted at women and the other at men, both claiming that money meant you only got serious requests. I wish I could find those ads, they were classic.
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
You've identified the problem but failed to adequately describe a solution.
The matchmakers need to make money, even to just pay for the costs of running the service.
A monthly subscription to use the service creates the perverse incentive to give bad matches. A one-time fee makes unsuccessful users feel cheated out of their money. A "pay us once you get married" option is ripe for abuse.
Even if the service is free and paid for by selling ads, you'd run into the same problem of the subscription model: They'd be incentivized to keep you perpetually single so you see more ads.
The reverse incentive is used by match makers. It works well for people seeking marriage since there is a legal endpoint to be reached that can’t be faked and is meant to be permanent.
What insentives can an app maker provde to turn the structure around?
I have no idea if they do this, but they should partially or fully sponsor weddings of couples that met on their service in exchange for a small ad at the venue. There's a captive audience of potentially lots of single people watching two people that met on their service get married. It's a great advertising opportunity. I'd have happily put a "This wedding brought to you by OK-Cupid" banner at the bar at my wedding for $500 or $1000 towards the open bar.
> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?
1. Network effects. An app isn't like a new local business where people will naturally wander in. They may already exist but the market's captured everyone on the skinner box services
2. App stores. The deeper you look into the things needed to advertise as a mobile app, the more obvious it becomes. You need milliions up front just to be featured in your critical launch time. If you don't, you fall into #1 and it's hard to recover from the "it's so empty" early impressions.
3. As you said, any success despite #1 and #2 is destined to fail. ad won't make that money up, so the only viable idea is relying on a premium or subscription model. But paid models in the era of "free" mobile apps is a hard sell unless you can guarantee success. And dating is anything but guaranteed.
That said other models have been tried to correct the issues with the big apps. Limiting matches, reversing the gender dynamics, based around special interests, etc. The only one I think I saw any kind of success from is one tailored towards rich/famous people meeting other rich/famous people (surprise, surprise).
Also note that as of now, Apple developer guidelines warns specifically of creating more dating apps. They consider it spam.
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions.
In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to online dating.
In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to men.
My experience with OKCupid was that women must lie to get laid, moreso than men. A man can state "just want sex" on his profile and it is socially neutral. A woman who posts such a thing has social consequences.
Or starting a job; wanting to advance in the office; become an entrepreneur; wanting to go into politics; wanting to go into the clergy; wanting to become president; wanting to visit islands; wanting run casinos; wanting to run beuaty pagents...
Hrm...
> Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
Honestly, that's fine. The issue was when the "get laid" app suddenly decided to be the "find serious relationship" app. Makes about as much sense as Roblox thinking about a dating app, but I guess the MBA's told them it brings more monies.
> but some women greatly over-value themselves.
It's overblown, but the high level concept of "women are picky" the inevitable course of nearly all dating aspects. Evolutionary wise, women need to be picky due to their long gestation period, and men aren't as picky because they can copulate with dozens of women over the course of days. Add in a caste system and the pareto principle, and even scenes from millenia ago aren't as different from 2026 Tinder as you'd think.
But of course your last point only polarizes this existing natural phenomenon.
>Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail.
This is why we needed to litigate these sites yesterday. But we were too busy fighting amongst ourselves, like serfs warring in the streets while the kings sit in an ivory tower. This is an issue only regulation can fix. The human element shouln't be sold off to capitalism, especially in this time where people are supposedly concerned about falling birth rates.
When you say “$50+/plate” are you saying the dinner itself or each dish? Either way, (in the US) that is not considered a particularly expensive meal for an adult taking someone on a date. In 2026 you should expect $100-$200 bill with drinks basically anywhere. Going out to dinner is not cheap. $100 is actually a great deal unless we’re talking chain restaurants.
If you don’t want to spend that every first date, then I would suggest not making dinner the first date. Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
Fair question. When I think "$50/plate", I'm thinking $50 for just the dinner main course, not including drinks, appetizer, or dessert.
> Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date. They want to be wined and dined and treated like a princess right off the bat. They think they're a prize to be won simply by being a woman.
Though I truly believe that most women are not like this. However, some are, and their attitude is probably what keeps them perpetually single.
The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date.
404 Problems Not Found
If the idea of a causal first date appeals to you, but not to the other party, you probably aren't a good match. Swipe left and find somebody else.
If somebody gave me shade for a casual first date before we’ve even met in person that’s not someone I’d want to take on a date anyway. Not even saying they’re wrong or unreasonable, just think that if someone is vocally complaining about that maybe we aren’t a good fit.
You clearly think it’s poor behavior so why are you worried about striking out with them?
My reading of the comment wasn't that the problem is that people expect dinner to be $50+/plate, it's that people expect dates to be dinner, and $50+/plate.
The point is really that there's an expectation mismatch around costs that shrinks everyone's pool of daters.
For actual numbers in Canada, the Globe and Mail recently commissioned a survey showing about 47% of singles would not be willing to spend more than 50 CAD (36 usd) on a first date - and that 24% of singles think the man should pay, compared to 0.2% of singles thinking the woman should pay. So you can see the mismatch if you think about the Venn diagrams there.
Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article-is-canada-facin...
You've missed the point. The point is that the women in question demand it. There is no shortage of women on social media ranting about how lazy or cheap men are who want to do coffee or drinks for a first date. Or especially a walk. If you suggest a walk for a first date there's a strong chance you'll never hear from her again.
So, you've saved yourself the time and expense of a shared walk and two cups of coffee. Isn't that a win? Unless you are just looking to get laid, in which case, suck it up and buy dinner, I guess.
Yes, but the point is that people are not successful on these apps because of those expectations. A lot of people have sort of let the whole online dating thing go straight to their head. And now, theyd rather die alone than be slightly uncomfortable for a few minutes.
Why are you guys so concerned with these people?
Let them live their lives. I guarantee you they are not dying alone or whatever mortal curse you wish to invoke.
Most of the complaints I've seen are about men being rude and aggressive.
I can tell you from experience that it's a lot scarier to date men.
> 1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.
so are many women, unnecessarily gendered observation
you just hear less about guys crashing out over it
> misogynistic
the definition requires "contempt", but it has been diluted to mean any statement that merely points out of corrosive behavior
additionally, many of the statements are actually class based and not inherently gendered, for example, we would call out a man trying to date for free meals too, but since its seen in contexts about women, its stated in reference to that gender, masquerading as contempt and misogyny, but not highlighting what is in the observer's heart and mind whatsoever.
Countries are starting to criminalize ‘misogyny’ which includes interrupting women during meetings. I think Brazil is in the process of enacting such laws. These are usually being bootstrapped on civil right and hate speech laws.
Do I interpret the settlement proposal correctly that the unlawfully-transmitted copies, and any training outcomes derived from them, are not ordered purged?
No class action or fines for discrimination based on gender? OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
>OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.
If your main problem with a dating app is that men pay more than women, then you’re not going to like being in a relationship very much at all :)
Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.
In the 80's a club near me got into some sort of trouble for that so they switched to skirt night - only a tiny number of men were willing to wear a skirt to get in free.
If the service is free, you are the product :-)
It used to be that promoters were paid per woman they brought to the club and nothing for men, and they would in turn charge a cover per man.
No idea how these businesses operate now. I'm sure there's still sliding scales of sliminess based on the quality of the club and its management.
Aren't they going out of business in large numbers? I'm not sure how much of that has to do with the dating scene as much as it has to do with younger people drinking less though.
I think all attempts to explain "why <market based on discretionary spending by young people> is failing" that don't come to the conclusion "we're macro-economically cooked" are wrong.
If you exclude bots and otherwise fake accounts the ratio is much worse than 20:1.
that sucks!
whatever more accurate numbers you want to substitute in there is fine, the point remains the same.
My point is that what you're being asked to pay for is wildly misrepresented.
To be more explicit: you're paying extra to give more porn bots access to your inbox.
The ratio is that bad anyway.
Does anything in the FTC action prevent users from filing their own class action suit(s)?
(Sincere question, not snark)
There's so much shady and unethical behavior from these companies I'm surprised there's not more lawsuits and litigation against them.
I’m almost certain these dating apps, including Hinge and Bumble are creating loads of good-looking fake women profiles to attract male users and keep their platforms “sticky”. There are suspicious telltale signs like location downtown when nobody says they live downtown in my area. The same responses and prompts across multiple profiles. It’s equivalent to them cooking their books, but with vanity metrics.
Or the more realistic, less tin-foil-hat reason, sophisticated chat bots are a real problem and dating platforms aren't immune to them.
Why are you giving me companies the benefit of the doubt when they've already shown that they do this in the past?
> FTC action against Match and OkCupid for deceiving users, sharing personal data
Google ? Meta ? Microsoft ? Oh, i see, they pay well.
I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a fucked up admission.
They did tons of data analysis across all aspects of profiles, and had a popular blog where they published the results.
They were heavily involved in researching what factors more reliably led to not just better matches, but better relationships -- when you disabled your account, they'd ask if it was because you'd met someone through OkC and ask you to pick who, if you were willing to share.
I don't think there was anything fucked up about it, as long as it was all anonymized and at scale. Trying to understand what messaging strategies worked better or worse could be a major part of figuring out how to improve matches.
Like, one obvious factor could be to match people who send lots of long messages with lots of questions with each other, while a separate set matches people who's messaging style is one sentence at a time. I'm not saying that would necessarily work well, but it's not crazy to research if NLP analysis of messages can produce additional potential compatibility signals.
The whole point of OkC back then was to try to develop as many data-based signals as possible to improve matches.
If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.
[1] https://blog.photofeeler.com/okcupid-is-wrong-about-smiling-...
You mistook a marketing effort for science.
I did like that they shared a lot of hard data with insightful analysis. At the time, there were a lot of narratives about what women wanted and it was refreshing to see them post what was actually working. I remember being skeptical about anything being private online at the time, but I guess that perspective wasn't as pervasive.
makes me wonder if the person you went on a date with cherry-picked you due to your data. (anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!)
> anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!
"the odds are good, but the goods are odd" may apply here
If only they had the long term data too. It might make for easier discussions on the first date, but maybe there's more to opposites attracting/different roles in a relationship.
You're funny.
I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nice) dates out of it that never went anywhere.
> As part of a settlement, OkCupid, operated by Dallas-based Humor Rainbow, Inc., and Match Group Americas, which provides services for Humor Rainbow, will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.
Because everyone else is "allowed" to misrepresent its privacy policies.
It’s more like “strike one,” and sets up a clear standard for what happens if this continues, as it did in another well-known case.[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/facebook-agrees-pay-...
They should also go after Grindr which--according to Gavin Newsom's official campaign X account--reveals information about Newson's political oppponents
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/2036864339722875380
Federal complaint: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OkCupid-MatchCo...
Proposed settlement: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/MatchGroupAmeri...
I can think of a few federal agencies that need the same treatment, Palantir too
this kind of "action"/"settlement" is too funny:
>"As part of a settlement, OkCupid [...] will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies."
>"Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting: [...]"
every company should already be "prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies" and the collection/controls stuff.
12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation, and we get "please dont do that again". (dad voice: im not surprised, just disappointed)
>12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation
To be fair, the complaint only alleges one instance of data transfer, so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. It's like if your nemesis died under mysterious circumstances, a journalist asked you whether you killed him, you said no, and it turned out you did. Is it a lie? Yeah. Could it be reasonably characterized as "intentional obstruction of police investigation"? Hardly.
>so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.
i wasnt clear in my comment, but i meant it in the sense of "12 years to resolve this one incident".
>Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users.
i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
>i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.
Yeah you're right. The part about obstructing the investigation was in the press release but I was only looking at the complaint.
The US Government routinely treats corporations with kid gloves. When they're found to be breaking the law, the company usually says "oopsie doopsie, did we do that??" and the government in turn settles with "naughty, naughty, just don't do it again!" It's like kindergarten punishment. But if you or I break federal law, it's PMITA Prison for us.
When match was illegally allowed to buy okcupid an then tinder in violation of antitrust laws is when I realized how thoroughly libertarian propaganda has won and is destroying the country. I mean we've now fully legalized gambling and bribery of politicians for the sake of fake freedom. We're cooked.
What are you talking about? Match didn't buy Tinder.
IAC had owned Match.com for a while and then developed Tinder from scratch.
Match didn't buy Tinder. Tinder was always part of the same company from day one.