• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    In some ways I can see this being potentially problematic, however…

    For-profit dating apps (i.e. all dating apps) are shit.

    Not only do they aggressively restrict a lot of basic features behind shockingly expensive paywalls, but they also mess around with the recommendation algorithm to make you feel like you feel like you have to get the premium tier in order to even be seen sometimes.

    Plus they’re literally incentivised to keep you on the app - not match you up with someone permanently. And once you’ve proven you’re someone who’s willing to pay, they really won’t want to let you go.

    A publicly-owned dating app shouldn’t have these issues. Japan is incentivised to make good matches - they want to boost birthrates and curb the loneliness pandemic they’re experiencing.

    I just hope Japan is a country that takes privacy and security seriously.

    E: btw I mean publicly owned as in owned by the Japanese public, not as in publicly traded.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      A publicly-owned dating app shouldn’t have these issues.

      If someone’s job inside that company, even publicly owned, depends on the amount of users, they are incentivized to do all the same things. And publicly-owned companies too try to be kinda profitable sometimes. There’s also corruption.

      EDIT:

      I just hope Japan is a country that takes privacy and security seriously.

      Governments don’t.

      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 months ago

        Governments are incentivized to match people to combat declining birth rates. Lower birth rates means fewer productive people to support an aging population. It’s also loss in taxes.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          Governments have no incentives. People working in them have some. Having more youngsters questioning what they are doing, working and thus not relying on aid, may be less convenient than all those old people living on pensions voting for something stupid.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            5 months ago

            Governments have no incentives. People working in them have some.

            By this logic, companies also aren’t incentivised to do anything, just the people working in them.

            Governments do have incentives. Saying they don’t is absurd.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              5 months ago

              Correct. Companies are not. And what they do makes sense if you look at it this way. You could even notice how this reinforces the leftist positions on economics popular here, if your thinking were just a bit more agile.

              Saying they don’t is absurd.

              This is not very persuasive and seems to lack any elaboration of how would that work. From the ground up, like every good elaboration does.

              Governments do have incentives.

              Which ones then? I’m certain I’ll be able to disprove any of them.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                No, not correct, because your take is insane.

                Of course governments, companies, and other institutions have incentives. Maybe if your thinking we’re just a bit more agile (translation: if you were a bit less stupid), you’d recognise that.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  A structure of humans does not possess the same traits as a human. Are you going to argue with that?

                  Insults can’t fix your inability to reason.

                  I don’t see any arguments from you to recognize. “Of course” is not one, just like “I assure you”, and “your take is insane” is the same. Shouldn’t have considered Star Trek a smart show in your childhood, judging by the nickname.

                  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    It’s not even worth explaining because it’s so obvious that they do. If you said that eating chicken raw is good for you I also wouldn’t bother explaining why that’s not true. I’d just call it out as nonsense.

                    You insulted me first, dipshit. Quit advertising to the world how stupid you are. I don’t know what kind of brainrot you’re experiencing, but you should get it looked at.

                    You’re honestly arguing that companies aren’t incentivised to do things like make profit? Or retain employees? You are brain-dead lmao