This is pretty much coincidental with the rise of online dating. Who could have guessed that trusting the adtech industry with your love life was a bad idea?
Why would online dating make offline dating harder? Unless you're young and in the LGB group most people find their partners offline.
I think the truth is that dating is considered optional nowadays, which makes it more competitive both offline and online. People have minimum standards and if they can't find someone that matches these standards they can always stay single.
I personally don't believe in online dating, because the business model just doesn't work for me. Most dating apps are built for singles and once you find a long term relationship you cease using the app. An online dating company can only make money off of casual dating and perpetual singles. A "real" dating app should still provide value years into a relationship, otherwise there will always be a conflict of interest.
> Why would online dating make offline dating harder?
By de-normalizing offline dating and removing participants from the offline dating pool.
> Unless you're young and in the LGB group most people find their partners offline.
In Australia, online dating is the single most common way that people meet their partners and it's not close (35% online, 21% through friends, 13% at work).[0] I would be surprised if this is dramatically different from other Anglosphere countries.
I don't like online dating because of how completely inefficient it is, but it's hard not to believe in it when it's becoming the de-facto way people pair up.
Yet another instance of blaming societal ills on tech, instead of the supposedly freedom/agency loving users.
Read Houellebecq or any dating advice forum, for arguments on how excess choice enabled by apps makes dating less egalitarian and ruins it for the “weaker” section.
I am not blaming tech - I doubt dating has become harder when everyone got mobile phones -, I am blaming the adtech industry which is well-known for shady practices, dark patterns, and other UX/algorithmic shenanigans designed to maximize engagement on their apps, regardless of whether the app users derive personal happiness from it. It's not controversial, even on HN where half the demographics is on adtech jobs, to remind people that the goal of dating apps is to keep you on them, and if you find a fulfilling relationship, you won't stay on the apps, so they are incentivized to make sure you don't find a fulfilling relationship. Hence the headline: dating has become harder.
As for Houellebecq, his books are mostly about how gen X dudes feel empty inside - the crude prose and extremely plain writing style make for an interesting couple of books but there's very little beyond it. He also somehow makes the argument that men would be somehow less frustrated in places where people have less agency in their dating choices, which is an interesting, if unproved assertion - it would be nice if any citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Algeria, or Pakistan on HN could chime in and say if they agree with it.
Your first comment was too short to get your idea across and easy to misinterpret. Now that you have clarified your stance it's much easier to understand your argument.
Do you think users are more interested in ARPDAU or love/sex?
Tinder-style profile-based match dating (which is basically all dating apps at this point) is bad at getting users love/sex but great at maximizing ARPDAU.
Dating apps which are good at getting users love/sex but have bad ARPDAU struggle to attract investment and either shut down or pivot to user-hostile design to save the business.
Blame the users, sure.
It's not just the "weaker" section who hate the online dating experience, either.
For a start, half of US adults are married, so aren't dating anyone at the moment. So that by itself seems to prove it right off the bat.
But beyond that, half of US adults are over 38, so likely many of these aren't dating even if they aren't married.
So seems obvious that fewer than half of US adults are dating at all, and obviously the only a proportion of that group will have also been dating ten years ago, as they won't be that old, or will have been previously married.
So how can half of all adults have an informed opinion on this?
This is a well-spread stereotype but is it backed up by reality? At the bare minimum I'd like to know about HN's personal experiences during their twenties and thirties.
Back when OkCupid used to publish interesting statistics, they showed exactly that. It was dramatic and unmistakable. Male value starts low, gradually rises until about age 30, doesn't change much until about age 50, and then very slowly declines. Female value looks almost like a 1/age plot, starting very high and in a downward plunge. No data was available for females under age 18, but the graph slope suggests that value is higher.
What do you mean by 'value' and how is it measured? Like the raw response rate? An ELO rating as I hear some apps do? Or a google-style pagerank thing?
