r/technology • u/thinkB4WeSpeak • Sep 11 '26

Society Dating Apps Are Dying

https://time.com/article/2026/09/09/dating-apps-are-dying/
17k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.4k

u/stormblaz Sep 11 '26

They started locking good candidates behind paywall, ads every 3 swipes that open up a intrusive link, and on top allow bots to post onlyfan profiles looking to endorse their content behind a dating profile.

Yea ofc its gone, every other dating app promising to be different all ended up exactly like it.

1.7k

u/AntifaSuperSoldier13 Sep 11 '26

Because they are all owned by the same company. What’s their name again?

Tinder and bumble are owned corporate parent entity among a few others. They literally cornered the entire dating app market. Over 80%.

Should be illegal and it’s super fucked up. They have made our loneliness crisis so much worse while extracting what little money our generation has to spend after rent and food if you don’t wanna beat off and be alone forever

724

u/SuperBuffCherry Sep 11 '26

Tinder and bumble are owned corporate parent entity

That is actually incorrect. Bumble is the only major one that isn't owned by Match (who own Tinder, Hinge and all the other big ones)

269

u/bobandgeorge Sep 11 '26

Bumble is the only major one that isn't owned by Match

That is actually incorrect. Ashley Madison is not owned by Match.

184

u/abcamurComposer Sep 11 '26

If Ashley Madison is one of the few entities not owned by Match, then Match effectively owns everything

52

u/bee_sharp_ Sep 11 '26

I don’t see Feeld or Grindr on the Match-owned list either. I don’t necessarily disagree with your assertion, though. If you’re looking for a mainstream, (mostly) vanilla relationship, Match has a monopoly.

5

u/Daddy_Bod_In_Charge Sep 12 '26

Yeah but Feeld is just as heavily monetized as all the Match apps.

6

u/abcamurComposer Sep 12 '26

And Grindr isn’t exactly the cream of the crop

-3

u/No-Masterpiece3809 Sep 12 '26

Grindr will get you murdered, blackmailed, or extorted. Probably the most dangerous of any app.

3

u/backlawa75 Sep 12 '26

Eh it only gets you laid and makes you feel empty and/or heartbroken

or at least i've been told so

2

u/No-Masterpiece3809 Sep 14 '26

There's hella scammers, catfishers, fake profiles, and more on Grindr. There's also none of the verification walls that you typically find on other dating apps, and, since many people on Grindr are closeted, lots of scammers will try to extort you for money under the threat of outing your sexuality.

→ More replies

3

u/jherispringer Sep 12 '26

I believe Matchgroup just invested heavy into Sniffies, so they're coming for our freak apps too!

4

u/room506 Sep 12 '26

I'm so out of dating what is sniffes?

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

Match doesn’t own all of the dating apps.

3

u/Dragonboy142 Sep 11 '26

Do you have a list?

0

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

There are more than 1,500 active mainstream and niche dating apps, with a broader global ecosystem of over 8,000 competitive dating sites and platforms.

Did you want me to write out the entire list for you?

40

u/cssc201 Sep 11 '26

Iirc, there were almost no women on AM at its peak and the men were all gross cheaters like Josh Duggar that most women wouldn't really want. I'm shocked it's still around.

8

u/melissaphobia Sep 12 '26

… am I missing something? Of course the men on Ashely Madison are cheaters. It’s a website for married people to have affairs. Frankly, I’d be deeply wigged out by people on the website who weren’t cheaters.

2

u/AccomplishedWish3033 Sep 13 '26

Well it was mainly for married men on the DL

19

u/fedexpoopracer Sep 11 '26

Ashley Madison is a complete scam, unlike the partial scams of tinder and bumble

22

u/Jubenheim Sep 11 '26

Ashley Madison isn’t a dating app so much as it’s a hookup app.

9

u/FearlessAttempt Sep 11 '26

I thought it was the app for cheating on your spouse.

10

u/klmn800 Sep 11 '26

People actually use it still after the breach? I know a guy who had his email exposed. His wife left him, he had to move to a trailer, died alone of cancer a few years later. He didn't even meet anyone on it. Just... Signed up one night, and forgot about it.

6

u/_BrokenButterfly Sep 12 '26

Did the breach expose that there were only lime three women on the site and that only one person had ever gotten a date? I thought the site was long gone.

3

u/FearlessAttempt Sep 11 '26

No idea. Wouldn't surprise me though. The only reason I know about it is because of that data breach.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Steinrikur Sep 12 '26

A lot of guys signed up, speaking to bots and competing for essentially 0 women.

4

u/ThePatientIdiot Sep 12 '26

Isn’t Ashley Madison women base primarily filled with fake profiles either created by staff or other users? Like for every one real woman on that site, there’s a crazy ratio like 80-130 men or something

2

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace Sep 11 '26

Isn't match also a Christian based company or something also.

7

u/OldWorldDesign Sep 11 '26

Isn't match also a Christian based company or something

If by 'christian' you mean they worship at the altar of the dollar, yes.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

Should they all be free?

It costs a lot of money to develop and run a dating app

2

u/OldWorldDesign Sep 12 '26

Should they all be free?

Respond to my words, not the straw man you want to knock down. I said nothing about being free. All the companies mentioned are for-profit and almost all are under the corporate umbrella of Match.

As such it is not a surprise they will choose the short-term profit instead of an effective and long-term stable strategy.

This is not a newly discovered issue. In 2014 Goldman-Sachs sent memos to all of the entities it managed money for that they need to think of the future and long-term more because there was too much a trend to chase Profits This Quarter when those very decisions could (and increasingly did) destroy future business.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 12 '26

What “straw man?” Who wants to knock down who? How?

They aren’t going anywhere.

How have they chose short term profit?

I’m sure they did send memos to all of the entities that they manage money for. They want profits as well.

Dating apps are not “destroying” future business.

360 Million people are using dating apps with projections slated to increase to 440 Million.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

Facebook dating is probably the best app out there and it isn’t owned by match

1

u/ThePatientIdiot Sep 12 '26

Bumble hasn’t had many original thoughts and actions for most of its existence. They copy a lot of things from Match group apps. Removing women start conversations first is a big one

1

u/EtherPhreak Sep 12 '26

Bumble killed their girls make the first move, which killed their ability to keep out dirty creeps.

1

u/ImpressiveAmount4684 Sep 13 '26

Must be why I am having a far better time on Bumble than the other ones.

-6

u/Largeitude Sep 11 '26

Bumble is the least bad one, too.

27

u/Heizu Sep 11 '26

*was

FTFY. Bumble just removed it's main selling point; women having to text first. So now it's exactly as enshittified as every other dating app.

22

u/psychohistorian8 Sep 11 '26

since when is sending 'heyy' a main selling point?

the feature was useless from the start

16

u/ClerklyMantis_ Sep 11 '26

You're not really thinking about it very hard. Even if the initial message isn't inherently better just because it's a woman sending it, you're more likely as a man to get an actual conversation out of the interaction. This is because on all the other dating apps women are basically inundated with messages as soon as they match with some guys.

It's easy to swipe right on someone, it's harder to feel motivated to carry a conversation when 90% of the men you swiped on are now messaging you. Having the responsibility on the woman to send messages is going to lead to them taking that into account when they swipe on people. In my opinion it acknowledges and at least partially accounts for the current gender dynamics, even if it's hard to see on an individual level.

24

u/Heizu Sep 11 '26

That's missing the point entirely, by a mile.

Simply by making it a requirement that the woman message first, it drastically decreases the amount of sexual harassment and unsolicited dick pics a lady has to worry about any time she gets a match. Just because it doesn't help your personal experience on the app doesn't mean it doesn't add significant value to the brand.

12

u/Excuse Sep 11 '26

And Bumble is one of the only platforms that allows for you to directly share pictures in chat so the dick pic problem is a genuine issue.

2

u/Friendly-Revenue8245 Sep 11 '26

So they solved the problem they created?

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

Dating apps work very well for millions

1

u/Heizu Sep 13 '26

I know! I met my girlfriend on Bumble before this enshittification occurred.

2

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 13 '26

I’ve had great results with Facebook dating, Bumble, Woo, Hinge, POF, OkCupid, and Tinder

0

u/Largeitude Sep 11 '26

That’s not enshittification. That selling point barely made it different and was more an advertising gimmick because women would just not message, message a single word, or add the automated questions.

The app in general does way less shitty things the other apps do. It doesn’t lock popular profiles away. It doesn’t try to algorithm you as heavily. It has better prices. Its paid services actually do what they say. And it’s still more popular among women.

6

u/coldkiller Sep 11 '26

Lol not anymore, shits the exact same as the rest now

1

u/Largeitude Sep 11 '26

Nah, it’s several steps behind in the enshittification realm. It’s shittier than it was for sure and keeps getting worse, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the others.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

I’ve had great results with Facebook dating, Bumble, Woo, Hinge, POF, OkCupid, and Tinder

1

u/Largeitude Sep 12 '26

So have I. Doesn’t mean they’re better than bumble currently is.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 12 '26

There is no “better or worse.” They all work very well.

1

u/Largeitude Sep 12 '26

That's an outright lie. Tinder is full of bots, shows you profiles you already swiped no on repeatedly, is buggy, and shows your profile to people you swiped no one so when you pay to see who likes you, its a bunch of people who you already swiped no on. Its by far the worst app.

Hinge is overpriced, limits you to a very small number of likes a day, and doesn't follow your limitations about things like distance.

POF and OkCupid have been basically abandoned and became 90% bots or content sellers with no policing.

There absolutely is a better or worse, just like with any product. Its genuinely absurd and strange that you'd say there is no "better or worse" without a second thought about any product, let alone dating apps.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 12 '26

No. It’s not a “lie.”

What you described is your experience in the location where you are with you.

One person’s experience does not apply to everyone, nor myself. Never assume.

I have had a great experience with Tinder, Hinge which does not require a subscription, and a great experience with POF, OkCupid, Bumble, and Facebook dating during my time with using dating apps.

I have no complaints. Hope that clarifies things for you.

1

u/Largeitude Sep 13 '26

The bugs, cost, bots, limits are not location based.

You're genuinely lying or haven't used these apps in years.

One person’s experience does not apply to everyone, nor myself. Never assume.

No, its everyone's experience. Unless these apps have laws in different countries that disallow these things, then at best, you still have buggy, shitty apps that overcharge.

I have no complaints. Hope that clarifies things for you.

Yep. Thanks for clarifying you're full of shit or haven't used these apps recently.

1

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 13 '26

I currently use dating apps. I’ve had a great experience.

Never assume anything ever. Questions work much better.

It’s not “everyone’s” experience. 380 Million people use dating apps.

Cost is relative. Facebook dating is free and is an outstanding app.

I’m not “full of shit…” How so?

Are you capable of communicating in a mature, intelligent, professional manner?
That might be part of the problem on your end.

Like I said. I currently use dating apps. It appears that they haven’t worked for you. They don’t work for everyone. Some can improve their chances and some are not datable. Don’t give up.

→ More replies

436

u/Simlish Sep 11 '26

Match owns most of them.

30

u/Ecstatic-Curve-1853 Sep 11 '26

So start a dating website and get paid by match...got it

2

u/Used-Presentation551 Sep 14 '26

Good luck getting the initial userbase. And when you do get a large enough userbase which is 99% of the struggle for most social apps. Then yes, match will pay you handsomely

-13

u/Creepmyster Sep 11 '26

Or sued into oblivion

15

u/reksauce Sep 11 '26

Why would that be the case? Do they have exclusive rights to the dating apps market or something?

-9

u/Creepmyster Sep 11 '26

No but they probably have every possible algo patented and would sue you if yours looked in any way like there's. IP infringement and all that. Just 1 way big guys squash little ones.

6

u/hedoeswhathewants Sep 11 '26

Who needs an algo? Show everyone everyone else that meets their criteria. That's what we're all complaining about these apps not doing

81

u/DrQuestDFA Sep 11 '26

During the Golden Age of Cracked they ran a limited series set in the offices of a dating app. They had rivalries with other dating apps (and the colorful characters that ran them) but discover a few episodes in that actually they all worked for the same overarching company. It was a fun little series but didn’t last more than a dozen episodes or so if I recall.

186

u/woofyc_89 Sep 11 '26

If any other company in USA owned 80% of the market the government would break it up. Yet it doesn’t apply to dating apps? Which like 70% of people use to find love?

492

u/___Archmage___ Sep 11 '26

The US government hasn't been serious about antitrust enforcement since the 90s and now with a billionaire president representing the Epstein class, not much chance of enforcement

141

u/fcocyclone Sep 11 '26

Lina Khan seemed to finally be a breath of fresh air in that department, but corporations hated that so even pundits on ostensibly left wing (but corporate-owned) MSNBC were after her.

62

u/IsayNigel Sep 11 '26

Now she works for Mamdani which we’re all quite happy about

18

u/bradicality Sep 11 '26

CongratsHappyForYouNice.jpg

41

u/fountaincurse Sep 11 '26

As a lawyer, imo Lina Khan was the Biden admin's best secret asset. If Biden or Harris had won in 2024 we would have seen real antirust work being done for the first time in decades at this point. She was already going after microsoft and google; her work animus is the exact opposite of merick garland, who i personally feel is a 1990-republican good-for-nothing, but that's just me.

9

u/OldWorldDesign Sep 11 '26

If Biden or Harris had won in 2024 we would have seen real antirust work being done for the first time in decades at this point

The biden administration was working on serious antitrust work, but those cases take years and of course Trump tanked everything which was in progress.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/10/02/biden-ftc-antitrust-regulation-consumers-tech-pharma

https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-biden-antitrust-legacy/

The idiot fucking things up caused a lot of damage, but the next administration is going to have a congress that doesn't want fingers pointed at them and there's some good chance at a lot of those antitrust officials being brought back in the next democratic administration. Depends on a lot of factors, especially whether one of Trump's Federalist Society hatchet operatives gets involved.

9

u/Legendarien1 Sep 11 '26

I don’t know if I actually believe this, Harris was asked many times about keeping Lina Khan on the team and she refused to answer either way because she didn’t want to alienate the progressives that supported her or the corporate donors that wanted her gone. Kind of an encapsulation of her whole campaign really

-8

u/NadeshikoEatingPasta Sep 11 '26

She's an imbecile, and she was basically just the pendulum swinging all the way to the other direction (no discretion or consideration, just go after every single merger or acquisition whether or not it would result in monopoly or even oligopoly).

7

u/fcocyclone Sep 11 '26

We are at the point almost every major merger should be blocked

-6

u/NadeshikoEatingPasta Sep 11 '26

Well, no. Some should be blocked, and it should be handled on a case by case basis judged solely on whether or not the merger would cause monopoly or maybe oligopoly. That's it. The government has no right and no duty to intervene otherwise.

Spirit Airlines declared bankruptcy just a couple years after their merger with JetBlue was struck down. The judge in his ruling famously stated, ""To those dedicated customers of Spirit, this one's for you." Well done, your honor. Well done.

11

u/ash_ninetyone Sep 11 '26

I swear antitrust in the 90s and 00s only ever seemed to happen to Microsoft. Not to defend them of course, but a lot of other companies that seemed to me to have anti-competitive practices seemed to get away with it.

2

u/___Archmage___ Sep 11 '26

For sure, practically all the other tech giants were equally guilty and Microsoft got singled out

1

u/A_Confused_Moose Sep 11 '26

Yea this is one where both sides of the aisle are complacent and nothing will change. Both sides outside of trump have had multiple opportunities to act and they just don’t.

1

u/Maxxetto Sep 11 '26

The US government hasn't been serious full stop 🫠

0

u/NadeshikoEatingPasta Sep 11 '26

Haha, tell that to Spirit Airlines.

and my 12,000 shares I took a bath on when that asshole judge killed the merger

-1

u/Cheap-Session5656 Sep 11 '26

As if things were any different with Biden.

They are ALL scumbags or incompetent.

2

u/OldWorldDesign Sep 11 '26

As if things were any different with Biden

So you're saying none of this happened?

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/10/02/biden-ftc-antitrust-regulation-consumers-tech-pharma

0

u/Cheap-Session5656 Sep 11 '26

Oh man what a powerful move that was. It made so much diff..

Wait.

Made no difference.

IDGAF about political news statements or slap on the wrists.

Make a real difference. Actually break down giants. Remove monopoly. Improve competition.

Na. Stop pretending he made the world better. He was just 0. The only person he’s better than in the giant red flag leading our country now.

60

u/C4ndlejack Sep 11 '26

USA enforcing antitrust law? Not since the '70s

15

u/Happy-Telephone9483 Sep 11 '26

'90s, but, yeah

21

u/fcocyclone Sep 11 '26

Eh, the 90s were a very mixed bag on that at best.

Going after microsoft but deregulating a lot of the walls against consolidation particularly in media and communications, leading to our current hellscape.

2

u/Happy-Telephone9483 Sep 11 '26

Yes, that's why it stopped in the '90s.

97

u/ModsareFakenLame Sep 11 '26

It's just America inn general stoped caring after the new deal era , google,microslop,and nvida need to be broken up. The last monopoly that was taken down was like Cingular,(att).

6

u/tony_lasagne Sep 11 '26

It’s insane too how some would argue these giant firms serve the US interest when we all already know the path to greater innovation is to encourage competition. These large firms only serve the US interest in that they are now so monolithic that everyone on earth has to use them but when other countries start pushing the boundaries with leaner companies, these giants won’t be able to react

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/AKADriver Sep 11 '26

You could split nvidia's ai chip business from its consumer gpu business. And yes I'm aware that they're deeply intertwined/the same hardware just packaged different. But this is the issue that is most harming the computer hardware market right now and forcing PC hardware manufacturers to exist that are bound by antitrust law to not get into the enterprise scale ai business would be the ideal solution from a consumer perspective.

Antitrust also doesn't necessarily mean a big Bell style breakup. Microsoft back in the 2000s got hit with multiple suits, they didn't have to spin off Internet Explorer into a standalone company, they just had to change their business and marketing model to allow consumers to more easily choose their own software outside the Microsoft ecosystem.

1

u/Absolute--Batman Sep 11 '26

Also FruitCancer makers of iPhone should be broken up as well.

60

u/roodammy44 Sep 11 '26

I wonder why no-one is having kids now?

Entire societal functions being put behind paywalls.

17

u/whaaatanasshole Sep 11 '26

Shit, we might have to talk to each other now.

12

u/blind3rdeye Sep 11 '26

How much can I get paid for talking to other people? What's the best mega-corp platform to do that on, so that my high-quality person-to-person engagement gets rewarded. Otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of doing anything if there isn't a middle-man to profit from some kind of confected social arbitrage at every step of the way.

money corrupts pretty much everything it touches

8

u/Dipsey_Jipsey Sep 11 '26

Human greed will be this species' downfall.

There are multiple people around right now that could end world hunger and so many other problems, but they CHOOSE not to because it's not profitable.

If there's some sort of galactic council monitoring us to see if we're ready for interstellar communications/travel, they have definitely already turned off the cameras and said "ooof fuck THAT" 😅

3

u/Michael1795 Sep 11 '26

"You do this?! You lie?"

  • a believers Alien god, three body problem

3

u/VenerableWolfDad Sep 11 '26

everything has always been behind a paywall. There is nothing involving dating or friendships that has ever existed that was free to do except maybe go hang out in a park after dark, but the local police in every town and city i've ever lived in put a stop to that not paywalls.

-2

u/NicodemusV Sep 11 '26

You don’t need an app to date. Blaming dating apps is a red herring.

‘Entire societal functions being put behind paywalls’ this is a ridiculous excuse for failure to find a partner.

2

u/Aegi Sep 11 '26

Google?

Microsoft?

2

u/alinroc Sep 11 '26

If any other company in USA owned 80% of the market

Luxottica owns 80% of the global eyewear market. Most if not all the name brands you know are owned by them

2

u/snapplesauce1 Sep 11 '26

It’s not especially difficult to start a new app or website.

2

u/CyJackX Sep 11 '26

Doesn't it not count if those with the market share aren't imposing barriers to entry? Pretty much costs nothing to spin up another dating app.

2

u/Mr_Halitosis Sep 11 '26

We just fucking making up statistics now?

1

u/DPSOnly Sep 11 '26

It doesn't apply when you grease the right wheels.

1

u/Nagisan Sep 11 '26 edited Sep 11 '26

There are companies that own very significant portions of various things. Here's 10 companies that own almost all major US brands, including "competing" product lines owned by the same parent companies: https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/18yokrq/a_cool_guide_that_shows_10_companies_that_own/

It's known as "illusion of choice".

1

u/OzKong21 Sep 11 '26

The US government stopped caring in the 90's, and the dinosaurs in Congress have no goddamn clue how tech companies work because they barely use computers

-1

u/livy-aurelia Sep 11 '26

>If any other company in USA owned 80% of the market the government would break it up

LMFAOOO you sweet summer child

2

u/spersichilli Sep 11 '26

Bumble is its own thing but still sucks just as bad if not more

2

u/pinkkglitterr Sep 11 '26

I’m a woman and got banned from tinder and hinge and that’s after I was paying for a while to see my likes. It actually makes me sad bc im super introverted with social anxiety so its already hard to meet people 😞

1

u/SheenasJungleroom Sep 13 '26

How do you get banned from those?

1

u/pinkkglitterr Sep 13 '26

People would report my profile as “fake” and I tried to verify myself but got banned instead :\

2

u/metalyger Sep 11 '26

I remember a thing in Deus Ex 2 The Invisible War (not a great sequel) where there's a subplot about rival coffee chains and later you discover that they're owned by the same guy, and the competition is all front, it's all spectical.

1

u/NectarineCheap1541 Sep 11 '26

Is Feeld still around? That's how I met my husband, and they weren't owned by Match at the time. I don't believe I encountered a single bot there four years ago

1

u/MrTerribleArtist Sep 11 '26

The question then I suppose is why isn't there a competitor?

1

u/calcteacher Sep 11 '26

Pof must have radically changed from 5 years ago. I found someone nice this time after 3 different attempts, so I haven't been back. Lots of great candidates I thought.

1

u/CucumberOk8820 Sep 11 '26

So there's a market demand not being met and no one has the brains to make a better app?

1

u/MayaIsSunshine Sep 11 '26

if you don’t wanna beat off and be alone forever 

Well, if it makes you feel any better some states require age verification for porn so the former is more difficult than ever. 

1

u/Ancient-Bat8274 Sep 11 '26

Owned by match which is wild because I remember match dot com…ruined my parents marriage

1

u/Taellosse Sep 11 '26

Should be illegal...

Oh, it is. But we don't enforce laws against corporations or the wealthy anymore, so 🤷‍♀️

1

u/b00tstrapp3r Sep 11 '26

IAC. During the peak of my video dating app back in 2013-2014 I had a meeting with IAC in NYC. They approached us and I was hoping for an acquisition. But they wanted to see if we had at least 1 million users, or $1 million in revenue. We only had 500,000 users and it wasn't enough to get them to be interested. I thought it was plenty.

I think they just wanted to see who we were and how we operated. I kept my answers vague and generic. I didn't want to reveal any of our secret sauce. And like a lot of people here are saying, all the dating apps are the same. We prided ourselves in being completely different.

1

u/aerdvarkk Sep 11 '26

Match (aka match.com) owns a bunch of them:

Azar
Her
Hinge
Match.com
Meetic
OkCupid
Plenty of Fish
The League
Tinder

1

u/mexus37 Sep 11 '26

Tumble or Binder

1

u/Pale_Presence4662 Sep 11 '26

Hahahaha made the loneliness crisis worse!!!! Lmao.

Bro noone had apps ever before. Ever. Ever.

You not having dating apps puts you in the same boat as everyone ever before you. The 90s. 80s. 70s. 60s. 50s. 40s. 30s. All the way back to the first primordial ooze.

This is not a loss.

1

u/Medical-Button-5493 Sep 12 '26

I know several marriages from ok Cupid and none from tinder.

1

u/polakfury Sep 12 '26

monetizing dating sucks ass

1

u/PraireGentleman Sep 12 '26

Eh it was endless validation for the women who used it, they weren’t going to take it down without some protest about how it’s sexism

1

u/_giga_chode_ Sep 12 '26

I'm not alone but I do want to beat off forever

1

u/Minute_Attempt3063 Sep 12 '26

It's also great data collection...

I think people are getting kre aware of that, that apps are doing that, and making targeted ads, that will follow them everywhere

1

u/Future_Hotel_2086 Sep 12 '26

Not Bumble, and I'm pretty sure Match.com doesn't own Meta

1

u/jonmatifa Sep 12 '26

Because they are all owned by the same company. What’s their name again?

Antitrust is dead in this country, we love functional monopolies, makes line go up

0

u/3141592652 Sep 11 '26

Last I checked this wasn't the only way to get dates 

1

u/VenerableWolfDad Sep 11 '26

These people are all afraid to leave their homes, of course they need the app lol

0

u/Heliguy-1975 Sep 11 '26

They are not all owned by the same company and Tinder and Bumble have not cornered over 80% of the market.