Landrin201

I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder's part. The people who own and make the app know that, they're doing this anyway. So they're targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a "lifeline" which actually may make their chances worse.

No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn't mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is "aimed at creeps," because it's aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder's algorithm. Desperation doesn't necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.

Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You're using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in

Why are you assuming that men who can't get matched are automatically creeps? That's not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That's how I met my now fiancee, too.

Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people's mental health. They've taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They've reduced finding a partner to "does this person look attractive to you?" which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you're not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn't matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn't matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you're SUPER attractive, especially if you're a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you're actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you're seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a "dating economy" around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren't getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It's slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you're not "winning" and getting dates they make it clear that it's YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you'll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it's their only chance at getting a date. It's disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that's a different discussion

I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.

Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.

But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn't get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.

And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It's so frustrating to watch

I disagree that this is unambiguous, I was also confused reading this headline. It's odd wording. It may be technically correct but that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.

You actually believe that? The people who claim that people like Werner von Braun didn't commit any crimes are the CIA and Braun himself. All of the records from Germany were destroyed. It's essentially just taking his word on it to believe he was only involved because "he had to be."

He was literally a member of the SS, the wing of the nazi government that was directly responsible for the Holocaust. He was photographed repeatedly with himmler himself, in uniform. He claimed that those were just ceremonial photos that he had to participate in the keep his career. He also claimed not to agree with the Nazis politically.

Why would you believe anything that a member of the SS said? Especially one as important to the Nazis as von Braun was.

Of fucking course he was never found guilty of any war crimes, the US was actively trying to recruit him. They didn't want to prosecute their newest asset, a man who directly led to the US becoming the globally dominant force it became during the space race. He was useful so the US government deliberately didn't investigate him seriously, took him at his word that he totally wasn't a real nazi, and then used him to invent more rockets for them.

Because Google has gotten the law steuctured such that THEY aren't liable for false advertisements they host and serve.

If I posted an ad that was blatantly false on Google, legally I'm the one liable, not Google.

It's ass backwards, Google should be on the hook for this and should have to curate advertisements. Especially when so any of them are not just fake but are openly malicious

Up until now companies have been getting away with this because of "user agreements." Nobody has had the money and interest to get them in court.

I don't see any possible way this survives a lawsuit, for exactly the reason you said. This is almost certainly not legal but nobody has had a reason to get precedent to say it until now.

The obvious rebuttal to that is that it is in the financial interest not to detect false installs because the developer will owe them money for those. Why would ANYONE trust their word on this?

OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it's hyping up.

If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I'm totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn't a thing we need to "solve," this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going "we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!" This isn't the problem causing climate change.

The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don't we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?

Is the "commie" in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.