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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
You said capitalism and summoned your resident anticapitalist. How can I be of assistance, comrade. :D
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
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?
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.
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.
Real relationships require a vulnerability that dating apps can not provide
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.
But who makes the profit in your silly goose scenario? Somebody has to be making money or it’s a terrible idea!
This is what we call long-term investment a taxman wins once you have kids
“App” and “genuine engagement” are 2 things that don’t go together.
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.
But even non-profits need to pay for operating costs like salary and cloud fees. Where would you get the funding for that?
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.
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.
Where are we getting the funds for Lemmy and its instances?
It’s almost as if men are a little bit hornier than women…
Might not be a great idea, tbh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
This isn’t what was suggested here at all.
That’s how it’ll end up though.
Although with all the Nazism going on in Silicon Valley, there’s a good chance that’s what they’ve been attempting all along.
I can’t wait for TRUMPDate. Make America Date Again. Can’t go wrong.
yes, and women will be required to use it and have babies with the incels on it.
Its that or prison, ladies!
But the date is August 2, 1934
Someone tried this with a dating app for right-wingers only called “The Right Stuff”, which has faced significant criticism for lacking female users.
Enter the colour of your skin:
Whoops, no matches for you!
I would prefer something defederated over government owned.