A substantial improvement. The last two paragraphs are where the best chances for further improvement lie. "And yet" doesn't seem sufficient. Does "convenience" here mean commodiization? If so, is "desperation" the better word?

Of course, the absence of a conclusion is still striking. If the matter is as troubling as you say, why is there no discussion of what to do about it?

Increasingly, however, dating is supervised—supervised by online dating applications.

But an additional factor to consider is the deeply imbedded drive for connection shared by most human beings.The desire for emotional and sexual companionship has propelled the propagation of our species and tied us together. It is these primal and powerful drives that the dating apps prey upon. As more and more people join dating apps,and fewer meet outside these walled gardens, the potential for connection on these apps increases, and their magnetic pull grows stronger.

Why aren't these standard links in the text? That would make it much easier for readers, wouldn't it?

Who feels there is no alternative? Leaving aside the forced isolation of the epidemic, meeting people has never stopped being possible. Those of us who have been doing it all our lives are still doing it. Human pair-bonding has in no sense come to depend on the Parasite with the Mind of God. The forms of relationship based on commoditization haven't become dependent on the machine either.

So the analysis would benefit from a clearer definition of dating, a clearer sense of who "we" are, and perhaps even a little more sense of surprise that people are surprised to discover that entrusting their sexual and emotional lives to the surveillance system doesn't work out well for them individually or collectively. If we understand more clearly who is trying to get what, and why they turn to the machine to do it (that is, what does convenience mean in this regard) we will surely get more insight.

The Dat(a min)ing Game

-- By JustinFlaumenhaft - 16 Apr 2022

The Love Monopolists

In Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating, Moira Weigel argues that modern dating emerged in the 19th century. According to Weigel, before the modern dating paradigm began, courtship was supervised in homes, synagogues, and other non-commercial spaces. Modern dating, she contends, “takes that process out of the home, out of supervised and mostly noncommercial spaces, to movie theaters and dance halls.” Increasingly, however, that process is supervised—supervised by online dating applications.

The worldwide online dating pool includes hundreds of millions of users. In the United States, approximately 30% of adults and 49% of individuals aged 18-29 have used dating sites or applications. And a recent study of heterosexual American couples found that 39% met online, making it the most common way of meeting among the respondents. Dating now not only takes places in commercial settings, but is intermediated by commercial forces. Online datings applications have become the primary matchmakers of modern society.

Match Group, Inc. has taken over much of the responsibility for pairing couples. The conglomerate owns over 40 distinct online dating apps—including Hinge, OKCupid, and Tinder—and upwards of 60% of the online dating market share. Some commentators argue that this level of consolidation amounts to monopolization of the dating app industry. But such arguments elide a more serious issue: who are we letting pull the strings of people’s romantic lives? And what are they doing with this power? Match Group may have monopolized the dating industry, but the dating industry is on a quest to monopolize our collective search for love.

Social Media Symbiosis

Students of this course will not be surprised to learn that there are deep connections between large social media companies and popular dating apps. The relationship between these entities is symbiotic. For example, in 2015, leaked Facebook documents revealed that the company granted Tinder, Hinge, and other popular dating apps special access to Facebook user data, even amid policy changes that excluded third party apps from this kind of access. Meanwhile, these same dating apps often ask users to build their profiles around their existing social media accounts. Social media accounts have become part of the price of admission to the online dating scene.

The consequences of this shady symbiosis is reflected in a Guardian article in which the author recounts her experience requesting access to the personal data Tinder had collected on her. Tinder responded to her request with an 800-page-long document, which included extensive information about her Facebook activity and other social media use. This disturbing dossier underscores the fact that online dating apps are not distinct from social media companies, but continuous with them. They are merely another appendage of the PwMOG? , charged with overseeing, recording, and manipulating the most intimate aspects of users’ personal lives.

The Privacy Nightmare of Online Dating Apps

Dating apps have proven to be profoundly untrustworthy stewards of their users’ personal information and romantic lives. Grindr, a dating app geared toward the LGBTQ community, is among the worst. This is especially troubling given the discrimination and hostility that the LGBTQ community faces around the world—merely being outed as a user of the app could be dangerous. Nonetheless, in 2018, Grindr faced criticism for sharing the HIV status of its users with third party companies, which the company fully admitted to doing. It shared that data along with information about users’ phone, email, and GPS location.

Additionally, shortly after the HIV status controversy, Grindr was sold to a Chinese gaming company. The US intervened and forced the gaming company to sell Grindr, for fear the acquisition would provide China with fodder for blackmailing US citizens. However, in the short time before this intervention, the company had already provided its engineers with access to user databases for several months.

Thus, Grindr not only collected users’ HIV statuses—a fact which alone is alarming— but also kept track of users’ locations and contact information, shared all of this information with third parties, and, by selling itself to a Chinese company, placed its user data firmly within reach of the Chinese government. This is just one of multiple privacy abuses perpetrated by Grindr, which has received multiple fines for mishandling user data. And Grindr is just a small node in the vast network of online dating.

The Indignity of Online Dating Apps

In her opinion piece, “You Are Now Remotely Controlled,” Shoshana Zuboff begins with an anecdote from a 1997 FTC hearing on technology, privacy, and liberty. One participant stated, “We have to decide what human beings are in the electronic age. Are we just going to be chattel for commerce?” Decades later, the online dating industry has gone to great lengths to make the fear expressed in this statement a reality.

Like Facebook or Google, the business model of dating apps are based on, as Zuboff puts it, trading in “human futures.” But the way these apps engage users and cause them to engage with others is particularly dehumanizing. Users are not only the products, but the ones selling theirselves. They are prompted to craft profiles to catch the attention of another person swiping through a catalogue of thousands of other humans. Moreover, the user interface is often deliberately made to feel like a game and keep you swiping. The purpose of all this is not to help you find love, but to keep you playing the game and boost the company’s earnings.

This set up encourages users to treat others without dignity: to view dating as online shopping and fellow daters as replaceable commodities. Nobody enjoys this, but as dating applications monopolize dating and bring more and more users into the fold, many feel that there is no alternative. Of course, people still find enjoyment and fulfillment through dating apps. But dating apps make the process a dehumanizing one in which users are spied upon, have their secrets sold, and are treated like objects.

[Word count: 999]

References

https://www.statista.com/topics/7443/online-dating/#topicHeader__wrapper https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/11/20/this-cuffing-season-its-time-to-consider-the-privacy-of-dating-apps/ https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/NYULAWREVIEW-94-4-Gilbert.pdf https://mashable.com/article/facebook-tinder-user-data-access https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/26/tinder-personal-data-dating-app-messages-hacked-sold https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/03/599069424/grindr-admits-it-shared-hiv-status-of-users https://www.techrepublic.com/article/mozilla-privacy-report-on-dating-apps-singles-out-grindr-for-serious-security-lapses/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-grindr-exclusive-idUSKCN1SS10H https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/02/grindr-sends-hiv-status-to-third-parties-and-some-personal-data-unencrypted/ https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/regulations/avgjorelser-fra-datatilsynet/2021/gebyr-til-grindr/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/15/grindr-final-gdpr-fine/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/opinion/sunday/surveillance-capitalism.html

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JustinFlaumenhaft
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.