
Don’t Trust Facebook with Your Love Life - whalabi
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/opinion/facebook-dating-app.html
======
darawk
Can we talk about the NYT's fairly open anti-tech bias at this point? What
feels like every day, they come up with some pre-text to write (or publish, in
the case of editorials) an anti-tech article. Two today, the Amazon one, and
now this.

Certainly, there are big problems with some aspects of tech and they ought to
be reported on. But it seems like there's something a bit more going on here
than that, given their willingness to publish silly, conceptually thin
articles like this. This entire editorial is essentially content free. The
only point it makes is to summarize Facebook's shortcomings, which didn't
require the launch of a new dating feature to do, if it had something new to
say. But it didn't, so it used FB's announcement as a pretext to publish a set
of stock criticisms.

~~~
addicted
Maybe Tech should stop being so terrible with our data and privacy.

There are maybe 2 or 3 major companies (Mozilla, Apple?) that have shown any
interest in protecting their users privacy and not abusing and mining all the
data they collect from their users, who have unsurprisingly not understood the
implications of the massive amount of data that can be collected over the past
decade or so.

~~~
Lio
It would be nice if aggressive tax avoidance closely resembling money
laundering schemes weren’t quite so central to the FAANG business models too.

Especially when they’re in competition with bricks and mortar stores that
can’t use “double Dutch” and “double Irish” tax dodges.

~~~
short_sells_poo
I wouldn't single out FAANG (or Tech) for this particular issue, because it is
not idiosyncratic to these sectors. It is a systemic issue with the corporate
culture and regulations. Corporations have an obligation to shareholders and
they would be open to lawsuits if they did not partake in this morally
questionable but legally A-OK process.

~~~
falcolas
If they’re doing it, why _not_ call them out for their actions? That someone
else is doing it doesn’t make tech companies doing it somehow OK, or less
worthy of condemnation.

~~~
short_sells_poo
Sorry I should've phrased that better. I agree with your point, but we should
not target tech specifically for this, rather work on forcing the entire
corporate landscape to change.

~~~
falcolas
Any forcing action will realistically occur one sector at a time as the laws
and morality catch up to that sections actions. This is simply a morality push
against one sector, and its not as if we're _not_ moralizing against other
companies for doing this. HN will simply see more of the tech side of things
due to the inherent bias of articles posted here.

~~~
short_sells_poo
I disagree, because of what I posted before. This is not an issue
idiosyncratic to Tech, and out of all the shenanigans they pull off, this
might be one of the most vanilla ones. It's a little bit like (and I try not
to strawman your argument) targeting the coal industry because they use this
trick too. Yes, to add infamy, they dodge taxes as well, but more to the
point, they do far more sinister things that should take priority (for that
specific sector).

The tax evasion is a very important, but more general and unfortunately
pervasive problem of our society. I believe we'll do it a disservice if we try
to target it narrowly like that. It will get drowned out by whataboutism and
the bigger but specific issues. None of that can derail it when looking at the
bigger picture.

------
stared
I am waiting to use a FB dating feature.

Even if it is bad, other options are substantially worse.

First, the main website that took into account preferences (OKCupid) is almost
gone, Tinderified. And Tinder itself does not look at preferences at all. If
you are a type of person who dates people randomly met on a bus stop or in a
bar, it may work for you. If you expect any more, it is a lottery.

Second, only a small fraction of people who are looking for partner(s) are
active on any dating apps. At the same time (anecdotally) a lot of people meet
at a party organized by a friend, or through some special interest groups
(i.e.: common friends, social groups or interests).

Side note: I already had quite a few great dates with people I met on Facebook
(first interacting on some groups). Then, with common interests, seeing how
one interacts in public, and potentially - common friends, there is a much
higher chance to have commonalities. Plus, they are more than a "business
card".

~~~
dexen
_> other options are substantially worse_

Talk about misaligned incentives!

The dearth of _effective_ dating platforms is the expected end state of the
current "pay per use" model. The popular sites earn more from repeat customers
than from single-time customers. That is fine for general goods & services.
However it goes against the usual idea for dating: to find a partner &
establish a good, lasting relationship in as few "attempts" as possible. Users
successfully coupling up are effectively "lost" for the platform that
facilitated it.

What would it take to build a sustainable dating platform? First up, it would
need to benefit the most from a successful & permanent match, rather from
repeated use.

As much as I dislike Facebook for their abysmal handling of privacy, I figure
FB Dating suffers less form misaligned incentives than standalone dating
platforms. Presumably users will remain on FB proper anyway, whether their
dates are successful or not.

Come to think of it, the "traditional" (for lack of better word) society built
on nuclear families just might have been geared that way - to benefit the most
from people finding partners & becoming long term couples.

~~~
personlurking
>What would it take to build a sustainable dating platform?

Since finding the right person is a numbers game, I'd say the best path is an
easy path. Something between speed dating and a normal date, where the goal is
to check for chemistry as well as advance past the initial, in-person
interaction. Start with having a few like/dislike parameters met, then get you
both face to face.

Here's my idea for that:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17356401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17356401)

If we simplified and just went for a real-world, slower version of speed
dating, where each pair would get 15 minutes with each other, it wouldn't
control for like/dislike parameters. IE: I definitely wouldn't date a smoker.
Having it start online then move to real-world, asap, helps to match likes and
dislikes more closely.

~~~
dexen
If you don't mind bit of a downer, I see three major obstacles in your idea:

1\. monetization. How do you ensure your platform can at least cover its
costs? The users want to know your platform wont go dark one fine day because
of an overdue server bill. Better yet, that it won't get yanked like many of
Google's cool projects due to insufficient profitability.

2\. incentives alignment. How do you ensure the incentives for your platform
are to get the users paired up permanently, which usually would mean they stop
perusing your platform? Unlike typical services, a dating platform is one such
that most people want to be able to ultimately do away with.

3\. fulfillment. How do you make users feel they are putting in reasonably
hard effort? How do you let them increase the effort if they so desire? People
do feel fulfillment from putting in effort; cf. a lot of computer games that
grant satisfaction through _daily grind_.

[edit]

A throw-away thought:

current dating platforms operate in "push" model: the singles make themselves
available.

How about you make a "pull" platform - let already established couples find &
match up great candidates to join their social circles - as new couples.

Making the already established couples your main users would solve the
obstacles 1, 2, and 3. You would take money from the already established
couples for finding & matching up new great, interesting, friendly couples for
them. You would have the already established couples "grind" (put in the
effort) for finding & setting up new ones.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
The idea doesn't sound like it would require much monetization. It isn't a
site you actively browse, it just makes matches and dolls out notifications.
You could probably run the entire operation for a major metropolitan area on a
raspberry pi.

------
mscasts
This is a pretty bad article imo. I don't trust Facebook with anything and
they make a fair point that they are not monetizing the service which probably
means they are collecting data from it to use in some way that is not yet
clear for the general population.

But this is basically what Facebook already does, so if you already have a
Facebook account and trust Facebook with that data I don't see a reason to
trust them further.

~~~
ape4
Stay tuned for ads in the main part of Facebook for users of Facebook
Dating... Are you lonely? Use product ABC it will brighten your teeth and your
love life.

~~~
mscasts
Yes but I don't think most people care about being advertised to like that.
That is why they keep using Facebook.

You don't have to convince me, I deleted my account years ago.

------
melicerte
You can criticize the quality of the article as much as you want but this ...

[quote]

"There are no plans for ads and no plans for subscriptions.”

No ads.

No revenue.

Just love.

[/quote]

... is loaded with irony and accuracy (and a good reminder) IMHO.

~~~
blackflame7000
Just love, as we find out everyone’s relative attractiveness while they share
personal details on compatibility

------
mah_man
Although I agree with the general sentiment here: the article being a shoddy
hit piece by NYT, it is Facebook we are talking about. Considering FB aren’t
monetizing this feature, do we know what kind of data they are gathering as
part of the dating feature, how they are incentivizing it on a per user basis
and does the user have a say in this or an option to opt-out?

Also I’m curious as to how this feature make sense in the scenario where you
have users creating an FB account just for the sake of using FB Dating and how
effective would this be in finding a compatible match?

------
Simulacra
Facebook is getting into the dating game because of data. Look at all the data
you give all of these dating websites from Tinder to OkCupid. If you really
wanna know what someone thinks, get the analysis of the dating website. Then
you can sell that to companies, insurance companies, the government, anyone.

~~~
blackflame7000
Even better, would you rather market to the Hot Blonde girl with 1000s of
suitors or the proverbial "Kip Drordy" from south park? Now you can figure out
who's word of mouth really matters and that is the beginning of a dark society
where only the elite and beautiful have power.

------
nfrankel
Just don't trust Facebook. Period.

~~~
blackflame7000
It’s so painfully obvious the facebook Apps listen for key words to advertise
to you. If facebook didn't buy instagram they would already be my-spaced.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Not wishing to defend Facebook, but wasn't there a study recently that
disproved this once and for all?

~~~
moksly
I think there was, but I’m not sure if I think it was any real consolation. I
mean, what’s worse? Being listened to or them having so much data on us that
they can somewhat accurately predict our behaviour before we’ve even decided
for ourselves?

~~~
blackflame7000
> somewhat accurately predict our behavior before we’ve even decided for
> ourselves?

The brain is still a formidable computing device not easily emulated or
understood. AI Engines of today are limited because they don't have intuition
like the human Brain. They can't feel like something is off or a situation
doesn't smell right. We are learning to master the rational decision-making
process, but the emotional processes of the mind are what make us more than
just drones. It's the X factor that makes life interesting.

------
personjerry
I don't even trust myself with my love life.

------
louisv
One unexpected effect that could arise from this for Facebook, is that people
using this feature could start displaying negative emotions towards the main
app.

All it takes is a bad date, some awkward rejection, or a stalker experience to
start feeling ill about using Facebook dating, and by extension, Facebook.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
I don't expect this article to play well with a tech audience who knows that
FB's data breaches aren't anything special, every company has data breaches
just FB is a bigger target.

~~~
smileysteve
> with a tech audience who knows that FB's data breaches aren't anything
> special

2 days ago; HN comments: Facebook is clearly lying about the phone number
breach as it has recently been added to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20880917)

1 week ago; HN comments: How do Facebook employees live with themselves
downloading all android std libs?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20840931)

Today: HN Comment: FBS data breaches aren't anything special

------
ChuckNorris89
I distrust Facebook as much as everyone but is trusting tinder and its parent
company any better?

~~~
pluma
Yes. The problem with FB is that it already has a ton of data about you,
trusting it for dating means giving it even more.

Additionally FB has a track record of being extremely reckless with your data
and being dishonest about what data it actually gathers, how it is being used
and who it is being shared with.

------
kerng
This new book seems quite fitting:

Tools and Weapons: The Promise and the Peril of the Digital Age
[https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-
Digital/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Tools-Weapons-Promise-Peril-
Digital/dp/1984877712)

------
kgraves
I’ll take it further,

At this point, you should NOT trust ANY company or startup (especially VC
funded) with any data you give to them and you should treat all companies with
full suspicion.

Security mishaps, leaks, Data misuse and most importantly spying are the
reasons why we should not trust any of them.

It shouldn’t end with Facebook, Google or any other surveillance capitalist
company or startup. ALL companies spy on you with analytics and tracking
agents and it would be naive to think otherwise.

And you certainly should not trust them with your love life!

~~~
Lio
You shouldn’t trust any commercial organisation regardless of what sector it’s
in.

It’s not that “Business” is inherently bad in some way,it’s that corporations
are relatively unthinking optimising entities that move towards what’s
profitable.

Without legal frameworks to constrain them they’ll run over you or anything
else including the environment to maximise shareholder value.

It’s their raison d’être for existing.

------
hsnewman
So on the Hacker News front page at this time we have another article titled:
"Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims". Online dating is rife
with romance scams, how does facebook plan on protecting it's members from
this fraud?

------
writepub
While the advice is valid and agreeable, many people have already used
Facebook successfully for dating, based on many of the same parameters FB
plans to use. Only difference being the degrees of separation - without FB's
dating app, it was likely to be closer in degrees of separation (friend of a
friend)

------
atlasunshrugged
I hit a paywall halfway through unfortunately but I'm guessing I got the gist.
A counterpoint (although just playing devils advocate here, I try to give
social media sites as little info as possible while still making them useful
for my work) is that Facebook knows a lot about many people, likely including
those in your network and probably out of any service with the exception of
maybe Google, could make an optimal match for you if it wanted to based on
personality, interests, etc.

I've always thought it strange how people marry or get into relationships
generally with people in their immediate or secondary circle of
friends/colleagues/classmates when it seems incredibly unlikely that the best
match for you is in that group out of a few billion people in the world.
Personally I'd love a tool that found me the optimal match even if they
weren't in my circle and I think FB could probably deliver that with their
dating app if they wanted to

~~~
bloak
I think the problem of finding an "optimal" match is much harder than that.
Younger people don't know themselves so well, or know what's best for them.
Yet they are very flexible and could adapt themselves to lots of very
different people if they happened to end up spending a lot of time with them.

------
hcnews
Is there an easily accessible version of this article? I don't want to log in
to NYT.

------
alt_f4
yet another NYT anti-tech hit piece

~~~
Lio
If “tech” keeps doing bad things, and it will until legally constrained or it
becomes unprofitable, you can expect its misdeeds to be reported. ...because
reporting bad behaviour is profitable too.

~~~
alt_f4
dating app = bad behavior?

~~~
Lio
A dating app by itself clearly isn't bad behaviour but the "hit piece" you
mentioned is about not trusting Facebook.

People don't trust Facebook because of the other things they've done very
recently.

i.e. the tax avoidance, the shadow profiles of non-users, the marketing of
addictive game purchases to children, manipulation of time lines to alter user
mood and everything else in a very long list of negatives that's been in the
news in the last few years.

Until some length of time has passed between the way Facebook has historically
operated and them acting honourably, each new product they build will be seen
through the lens of a bad actor expanding its empire.

------
return0
This is too blatant of a hit piece from NYtimes, low quality and ... wtf is it
doing in HN frontpage (top spot, no less)? I would urge people to upvote
quality, not their personal outrages.

Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal
than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for
their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking
exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.

~~~
moate
Ah yes, the classic "Facebook already knows everything about you so why not
just use them for every facet of your life to prevent other companies from
doing what Facebook does with your data" defense.

1- It's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are never expected to uphold the same
levels of journalistic standard as reporting. It's understood to literally
just be, one guys opinion. Some are good. Some are bad. Take with a grain of
salt, call me in the morning.

2- Explain to me why Facebook deserves to be trusted and this guy is making
mountains out of molehills? Do you genuinely believe FB is a misunderstood
good actor here, or are you just annoyed about something else? (the NYT,
"anti-tech" journalism in general, the rise of anti-corporation sentiments
over the last 10 years?)

