this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025

385 points (98.5% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

10012 readers

1159 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

385

Destruction of OkCupid as an attack against its liberal-skewed user base (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The destruction of OkCupid by Match Group looks like a politically motivated attack against the minorities and intellectual power users who used to flock there.

OkCupid used to be the best place to match diverse people.
They crowdsourced thousands of multiple choice questions from which you built your search filter:

Which answers you accept
How important each is to you
Your answer for the other side of the match equation
Voluntary explanation

The match results were factored into friendship, dating, and sex. "Friendship" contained ethics and communication style, so it also worked for business partnerships.

Then Match Group bought it.
For a while they let it be, but then they:

Removed the factoring - no more looking for friends or sex, only complete packages
Removed search - no more finding the best matches anywhere on the planet, now you just swipe like Tinder
Removed keyword search - no more finding niche interests not included in the questions, like "furry"
Removed the search filter - now everything has to be the same to match: both of you must have or not have tattoos for example, never mind what you like - one of my likes went from 95% to 50% match
Deleted the voluntary explanations without warning, so no one could back theirs up
Deleted ~95% of the match questions without warning
Deleted all accumulated likes, which were the best matching people around the world with maximal couple/friend/sex partner potential except, for example, location for now. They broke the profile links, so bookmarks became useless.
They delete matches (mutual likes) if they haven't been messaging in a while, as if that meant they're not a match - no, they have a temporary problem, such as life situation
They police inconvenient statements in the users' introductions as the political situation evolves - the day after the mass murderer healthcare insurance CEO got shot, the section in my profile containing (for months) "fuck the healthcare system - make a better one" was deleted without sending me a copy to edit

Avoid dating services owned by Match Group.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 114 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think it's much more likely they destroyed it because it worked and was free. It didn't keep users on the platform swiping endlessly and that's bad for it's more profitable apps

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 34 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yep met my wife on OkCupid. Been together for going on 12 years now. Sad to hear it's been destroyed. Why the fuck is this group allowed to monopolize the dating apps?

This shit is sick and needs to be torn down.

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 3 days ago

Why would this type of service be different from anything else under capitalism? 😔

[–] jmiller@lemm.ee 153 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That is a real shame, I met my wife on OK Cupid. We liked it for all those features that are gone now. I've recommended it to several people over the years, guess I'll stop doing that.

As for being politically motivated, maybe? But my first guess would be that the changes were driven by immediate profitability factors. Because really, what is more important than quarterly and annual profit reports?

[–] v_krishna@lemmy.ml 32 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Also met my wife on there. Together for a decade now, 6 year wedding anniversary this spring. Iirc we were a 99% match. Which in hindsight is funny because even though our moral sensibilities and lots of our interests/hobbies are very aligned personality wise we are very different (but complementary for sure)

[–] iheartneopets@lemm.ee 7 points 3 days ago

Met my husband there about 9 years ago! Got married in '23 and had a baby last year :)

[–] IHawkMike@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

This almost describes mine and my wife's experience to a tee.

I feel bad for anyone trying to date online in this enshittified world today.

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

My wife and I are as well. Used OKCupid 15 years ago and it was something like 98%. And while we definitely like different things and have different personalities, there has never been a foundational difference. On the important stuff we are incredibly aligned.

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Remember, tech companies don't see success in your problem being solved. The tech company wants you as close as they can get you to the carrot, close enough to believe you're about to grab it, without ever actually letting you even touch it.

That used "marketplace" doesn't want you to find the product you want to buy, it wants you to scroll and message sellers to boost engagement...

The dating app doesn't want you happily paired...

That food delivery service doesn't want you to love that restaurant, they want you to search again next week....

[–] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago

Ain’t no money in the cure!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 130 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That chart pisses me off, they have comodified companionship and exploited lonelyness in every single way.

This is not news, but for the first time made me realize how huge this is.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 50 points 4 days ago

They are a monopoly and should be broken up

[–] figjam@midwest.social 26 points 4 days ago (3 children)

We should build a new service that does what okc used to do and then sell it to match for dollars. Repeat ad nauseum

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why not a federated, free, open source dating service? Fuck getting ahead in the rat race, let's help some lemmings fuck.

[–] figjam@midwest.social 3 points 3 days ago

Huh. There may be something to that.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

This sounds good until you realise you're talking about building something good that people like and then setting it - and them - on fire for a few bucks. What would you really be selling to Match? User data of unsuspecting users who did not sign up for that.

[–] August27th@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Match owns all the patents

[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What exactly is patented?

[–] RacerX@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Probably the idea of asking people questions to see if you're compatible.

[–] courval@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

This is an example of a monopoly very few people know about and it's deeply concerning.. How can we decentralise these human social tools?

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 48 points 4 days ago (2 children)

With how much of dating happens over these apps, it's crazy how much damage Match Group could make if they deliberately wanted to.

You could deliberately match everyone with only the worst possible matches, hide the gokd ones so no one has kids.

They could practice Eugenics breeding some master race.

They could empower sex offenders.

etc.

There is zero oversight or transparency. They could do all of these things already or more and we would have no idea.

You could probably destroy civilization by having that much control over the dating market.

Not that they are doing that, but I'm just saying, that's a HUGE moral hazard.

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If they got access to the DNA data that many companies collect to analyse heritage and health, the eugenics could work well.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

By "work well" you mean damage society

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If they'd choose to do dysgenics, sure. Why though? Making a slave race?

Eugenics could be used ethically to improve humanity

Improving humans via new eugenics by transhumanists is compatible with human rights.

We allow natural mutation to produce illness and other problems. Why not design babies?

Gene editing will be cheap and widespread. What laws produce ethical results? Should personal eugenics be a human right? How about parental eugenics? Which baby designs are ethical? Don't say the current natural ones, because many of them are unhappy.

Misplacing the blame

Genocidal people having used eugenics as an excuse for mass murder doesn't make eugenics itself bad. Blaming eugenics does nothing to prevent further genocide with excuses. Hate does genocide, the various excuses do not.

(Similarly, over-optimistic fools slamming one version of communism on a whole country without prototyping different versions in villages first, crashing the whole country, doesn't make communism itself bad. Blaming communism does nothing to prevent foolhardy mistakes in societal change. Development should be nimble, prototypes should be cheap.)

We don't ban money because it's used to hurt people - we regulate dangerous stuff to protect human rights. Or, should regulate.

Eugenics works on animals:

Dogs have better social skills than wolves = eugenics.
Some dogs have trouble breathing = dysgenics.
Stray dogs in the wilderness are worse hunters than wolves = dysgenics in that environment.

Humans could be better:

Humans could be designed to work well in their lives:

No disease, no ailment, unless asked for by patient candidate.
Happy childhood in a family where everyone's personality is compatible with each other, DNA-matched.
(can even be done by trading babies, without gene editing)
Happy working career, DNA-matched.
'

Humanity could be better:

Humanity could be designed to work well in its evolution:

Better thinkers for avoiding disasters.
Fewer born sociopaths, less risk of human extinction on purpose with future weapons.
Fast adaptation to environmental changes, such as Mars colony in unhealthy 1/3 gravity.
Better disaster survivability through species diversification.

Separate the human kinds from incompatibles

Echo chambers (countries, languages, professions) are cultures protecting their own environment from incompatible cultures. When a group of people demands seemingly absurd laws, they should be allowed to apply those laws to all volunteers, babies being non-volunteers with universal rights. At least personal eugenics should be legal, like body modification is now. Ear piercing is a modification some abhor.

Transhumans and conservatives need to stay away from each other, and current technology could help: phones could navigate people, routing incompatibles around like oil and water. On shared ground, weirdos would always happen to be on the other side of the street. Train cars and elevators filled with groups of people approximately their own kind. All cars good looking on every commute, timed just right for people's tastes. On the web, OkCupid and Quora used to be good at that, matching tastes and interests.

Do the opposite of what the for-profit sensationalist media does, smearing the wildest progressive stunts in the conservative's face, because rage sells, anger is addictive. The blame is mistakenly placed on the depicted, not the media breaking people's boundaries by pushing incompatible people into knowledge of each other.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

TIL Match Group = The Bene Gesserit

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago

I lost the first messages my wife sent me on OK Cupid and I’m quite heartbroken about that, but I have my actual wife with me still and she adores me.

[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Does anyone remember the study guides on sparknotes.com?

There was also thespark.com and they started sparkmatch.com... which became okcupid.

It feels like it was another lifetime ago.

[–] beebers@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

I remember!! I signed up on OK Cupid back in the day because I just wanted to take the quizzes that were on thespark.com

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Dating apps have never been compatible with their business models. Even without the politics, they’re motivated to keep you on the site and using it forever instead of finding a longterm partner and going on with your life.

The only actual business model I’m aware of that’s compatible with finding a partner is a traditional marriage-focused matchmaker, as often used in traditional Indian arranged marriages. These matchmakers work best as a lifestyle business where the matchmaker personally knows the families involved and relies on (usually her) reputation, so can’t just run off with the money if the marriage doesn’t work out.

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Changing the business model from pay-to-play into escrow-held matching success reward would change dating.
If a user likes another, and wants more matches of the same kind, they must admit the dating company was successful, and the escrow pays them.
If you choose not to release the payment, it means the match was bad and the matching algorithm must be corrected according to your stated reason for dissatisfaction. If you hold on to the deposited money despite success, your matches get worse.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

That sounds at least somewhat plausible but I’m still skeptical.

I think the core problem is the loss of trust in our society. This of course is not limited to dating but is everywhere, affecting almost everything, and it’s taken place over the past few centuries. We’ve gone from a village lifestyle (where everyone in a community knows each other and relationships of all kinds are lifelong and reputation is extremely important to uphold) to a metropolitan lifestyle where everyone is anonymous and mass media predominates, and by far most relationships are temporary transactions (even in retail stores).

This latter structure of mass anonymity does not foster trust in any meaningful capacity and so is not conducive to partnership formation, among many other things. News media has similarly suffered catastrophic loss of trust due to the erosion of the classified ad business model and the consolidation and cost-cutting which followed.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 34 points 4 days ago (5 children)

are there any dating apps/sites that don't suck?

Everything is either paywalled to fuck and back or beyond useless. Mostly because of Match Group, but even the few I've tried not owned by them are also shit.

[–] scrooge101@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is Alovoa which is open source. By lucky happenstance I met my wife there 2 years ago, since we both were into open source.

The userbase was very small though back then, didn't know if it improved now.

[–] archonet@lemy.lol 2 points 3 days ago

It might be abandoned/currently broken? I actually just tried making a new account and while that worked, I can't sign in at all with it on the site -- passing the captcha does nothing. On the app, I can sign in, but then nothing ever loads under search, and trying to edit my profile or photos straight up crashes the entire app.

Either it is fantastically broken or it's just my luck being the way it usually is.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (7 children)

They all suck. The few people who do have success are the exception, not the rule.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No lol.

I use tinder to remind myself that there are still a lot of single people.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Would it be feasible to make an activitypub based successor?

It was a great service to find people with similar worldview, values, and interests.

[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

There's an open source dating app, I think its called alovoa? I think I remember seeing discussion on the subreddit about activity pub but I haven't followed it or used the app for quite a while

Pretty sure it's on f-droid though

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The problem I see in trying to implement it using AP is that a node on an AP network knows nothing about other nodes by default. Whereas a dating site wants to match people with as many other likely partners from the pool available. These two features aren't really compatible.

You'd need some kind of "master list" of instances, which isn't really how AP decentralisation is meant to work.

e.g. lemmy/?bin. A new instance knows nothing about other instances when first setup. It works like a standalone forum. However a user, if they know a community name and instance name, they can search for that combined value and their instance subscribes to the remote instance. After that they will receive all new content for that community.

So it's a subscription based system.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

OkC is how my partner and I met 4 years ago (tw4w)

It was the most queer friendly dating app, especially if you were looking for more than a quick bang. From my experience, Tinder and others were primarily full of unicorn hunters and polycules

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Um…I searched “tw4w acronym” and I could only find that it’s an abbreviation for the Singaporean stock exchange?

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

(trans) woman for (cis) woman

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

Thank you! I was way out of the loop on that one. I bought about it hard and wasn’t anywhere close lol

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Match Group’s stock is down over 80% from it’s peak in 2021.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 13 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Some of those names are quite funny when read in other languages. In Portuguese, azar means "bad luck" and chispa means "get lost" (though spelled xispa). Both are not things I would expect a dating app to be named after.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That sucks. Lost my virginity through it, had many good, safe and enjoyable hookups, met a number of friends through it and both my previous and current gf as well.

Only dating app I seriously used and it was amazing as a bisexual trans woman who didn't want the brainrot UX of Tinder.

Makes sense it no longer has a place in our current hell world. Fuck match group, fuck tinder, and fuck the rich.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Met my wife on pre-Match OKC. I've heard it got worse but I had no idea how bad.

Their system worked and was by far the most reasonable, user-friendly way to meet people with the highest chance of compatibility. It's a huge loss that it's gone and that most people now never will know how good it was.

Edit: Wow, any .com text is automatically linked? Removed...

load more comments