
Facebook uses its ad policies to block apps that compete with its dating service - ianwalter
https://thenextweb.com/apps/2020/02/18/facebook-uses-its-ad-policies-to-block-apps-that-compete-with-its-dating-service/
======
JohnFen
> its policies prevent “hook up” apps from advertising on the basis that
> they’re advocating for sexual encounters.

So, Facebook is opposed to sex between consenting adults? For some reason,
that doesn't surprise me at all.

~~~
jariel
If you try to put an ad for a group-sex/sex-hookup app on CNN, Googe, Apple or
NY Times you'll get denied as well.

The headline is blatantly misleading, probably purposefully so, which is sad
and should make us wonder about the integrity of such organizations as well.

~~~
kennywinker
I'm pretty sure Tinder would not have a problem advertising in the NY Times.
There are plenty of people on Tinder explicitly seeking hookups, open
relationships, or group sex.

~~~
jariel
Tinder is a dating app, like other dating apps, can be possibly be used for
hookups etc. but it's not directly advertised as such.

A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on
hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation.

But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved
by any of those orgs.

Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on
connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal'
though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.

~~~
kennywinker
I pretty much reject your false dichotomy of dating vs hookup apps. The
difference between a date and a hookup is what exactly? But even if we let
that stand - the app in the article that was turned down is called #Open and
it's very much a dating app like tinder/bumble/hinge not a hookup app
([https://www.hashtagopen.com](https://www.hashtagopen.com)) - it just has a
bunch of features focussed on non-standard relationship models (polyamory,
open relationships).

The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a
scam ([https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-
ashley-m...](https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-
madison-database-1725558944)), so I have no problem with it being banned.

~~~
jariel
If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating'
then I'm sorry for you, there's no point in my commenting on that.

As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual
sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' \- which is
definitely different, but an often overlapping category.

For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's
definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large
audience to not have this included.

Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world
are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of
people within the Western World.

FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's
a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but
something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'.

If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in
arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's
specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very
well within reason.

So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on
private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.

~~~
kennywinker
> If you can't grasp the difference between 'casual sex hookups' and 'dating'
> then I'm sorry for you

I’m sorry but you can’t brush the point off that easily. The difference
between a date and a hookup is BS. Hookup is just a judgmental description of
a short sexual relationship.

E.g. Two people go on a ”date”. They have sex. They never see eachother again.
Hookup, right?

Except maybe they both are seeking a long term relationship, but due to sexual
incompatibility or random life events they don’t end up seeing each other
again. Now it seems more like a failed attempt at dating, than a hookup.

Two people meet up for the purposes of a sexual encounter. They have a few
drinks together, aren’t feeling it and go their separate ways without having
sex. That sounds like a date. No other description fits, since they didn’t
have sex.

Two people meet up for a ”hookup”. It goes well, they repeat it. Two years
later they are married with a kid on the way. Was there a point where it was a
hookup and then it turned into serious dating? Maybe but where?

~~~
soylentcola
My thoughts as well. A few years ago I found myself single again after a
10-year relationship went sour. The current form of online dating hadn't
existed the last time I was a potential user of said services, but my
experiences line up pretty well with what you outlined.

I used Tinder, OKCupid, and Bumble for the most part and matched up with
people with a variety of results. My general approach was to seek out
potential long term relationships but didn't mind "having a little fun with
Ms. Wrong while looking for Ms. Right" as the saying goes.

Many of these matches went nowhere as there wasn't mutual interest. A few
ended up as short term things with maybe 1-3 dates and occasionally some
intimate activity. One ended up as a longer term relationship that is ongoing
a few years later.

None of these were specifically "hookup" apps. Two out of the three "short-
term with physical intimacy" relationships were started via OKCupid (commonly
seen as dating-focused) rather than Tinder (seen as hookup-focused). Yet I
still had a mix of "hookups" and longer term dating.

------
Animats
Facebook lets Grindr on.

~~~
bathtub365
Maybe Facebook hasn’t decided to go into the gay dating market yet

------
einpoklum
Facebook not willing to publicize its own competition?

Why, I'm shocked. Shocked and chagrined.

------
bitxbitxbitcoin
Facebook also used its ad policies to block legitimate, regulated
cryptocurrency businesses right up until a month before their announcement of
Libra.[1]

Do note, I'm not talking about Facebook's laudable decision to block ads for
scam ICOs, which its policies against fraud have long prohibited.

[1]
[https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-...](https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-
reversed-cryptocurrency-ad-policy-ahead-of-libra-announcement/)

~~~
pergadad
In the crypto space fraud and actual business are hard to distinguish (and one
can quickly become the other).

