Landrin201

I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder's part. The people who own and make the app know that, they're doing this anyway. So they're targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a "lifeline" which actually may make their chances worse.

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you're SUPER attractive, especially if you're a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you're actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you're seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a "dating economy" around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren't getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It's slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you're not "winning" and getting dates they make it clear that it's YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you'll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it's their only chance at getting a date. It's disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that's a different discussion

Corporations when some dude steals a copy of a 30 year old movie: 😡

Corporations when they steal billions from their workers salaries every year: 🤑

I would argue that if there's a product that nobody knows exist that's not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don't actually need the product.

I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don't need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don't care about. I don't care about the newest tech toys. I don't care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don't need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?

Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I'm drunk rn and estimating.

I agree. It's hard to tell, though, if it's because of the huge influx of new people arriving and interacting what what they are seeing in active, or if it's a flaw in the system. I've been here 2 days now and active hasn't changed almost at all, this morning I saw one new post near the top.

I think after a week or so it will probably stabilize and we'll start seeing more posts get higher up.

I kind of agree.... And also kind of disagree.

I think people will be attracted to places like blue sky because they are more similar to what they are used to and more user friendly. When people were looking to leave Twitter, I remember Mastodon being talked about. When I first looked into it, it was super confusing. I'm literally a software developer, and I was having trouble figuring out what was even going on here.

I understand that different platforms will have different features, and don't expect lemmy to be exactly like reddit or mastodon to be exactly like Twitter. But to get casual users to come to either, they need to be easy to join, easy to use, and easy to understand. I think that starting off by explaining to users what the fediverse is is too confusing.

Frankly, I think the biggest thing right now, by far, is that there needs to be a centralized, or pseudo-centralized, login system. That is the biggest hurdle for all new users, and explaining how to make an account basically requires explaining how the fediverse works-which for most people is just too much information at once. They'll see that, think "this is too confusing," and leave.

Ease of use and adding more features will come with time, more users, and an influx of money from those users to support development. But we need to attract users first, and to do so we need to make the process of joining really clear, concise, and easy. And we need to remove the risk that if your instance gets deleted, so does your account.