Study suggests Dating Apps can stop "Sexual Racism" because people shouldn't be allowed to date who they like?

[sof006]

I'm very open to dating someone of another race. I just tend to find it rather rare for me to by attracted to someone. That doesn't make me racist (because i'm not) but if I wasn't interested i'd usually say that they aren't my type. The colour of someones skin doesn't determine whether I find you attractive. I've seen some very attractive asian and black people who i've said "Damn, you're beautiful".

[Curufinwe_wins]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Trying to "make people broaden their horizons" in terms of what they find sexually attractive is a very, very touchy subject though.

Would you tell a homosexual man to try and date women? Or a lesbian woman to try and date men? If no, why not? Why is it less acceptable to try and "judge" a homosexual into being straight, than trying to nudge a person who prefers white people to picking a black person (or vice versa)?

 

At the end of the day, people should have complete freedom over who they want to date, and I don't think companies should try and intervene with that.

 

Labeling it as racism is just silly too. It's essentially like saying not having sex with an overweight and old white guy is body- and age shaming and you should feel bad for not sucking his dick.

See, but this isn't doing anything about that. It is merely promoting additional options into 'possible view'.

 

The thing people seem to forget is that when using dating apps, anyone that doesn't show up might as well not exist as far as you are concerned. If your past preferences and selections indicate you are primarily interested in qualities X, Y, and Z, the conventional response from dating sites is to just offer up as much XYZ as possible to the exclusion of other things (until the dating pool is exhausted anyways). This is merely adding back in more of the other dating pool that people might not instantly select. Nothing forces you to select them either. No one is talking about removing your XYZ options.

 

Also, as I mentioned before, these techniques (besides just broading the potential pool of candidates for matches) also have psychological responses in causing people who are on the edge of one's dating preferences to appear more favorable in response (7 in a sea of 10s vs in a sea of 5s blah blah). Thus by promoting more matches in general, instead of exclusively aiming for "higher quality matches", more individuals see results.

 

(Ignoring the whole argument about people's shallow vs true preferences, which I talked also about in a previous post)

 

Analogous thing, but years ago people were complaining that purely random music services (ala Pandora) weren't random enough. The eventual solution was to make the music selection LESS random, and more evenly spaced, which feels to human beings (who implicitly suck at probability) at least to be more random and not less.

[imreloadin]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

See, but this isn't doing anything about that. It is merely promoting additional options into 'possible view'.

 

The thing people seem to forget is that when using dating apps, anyone that doesn't show up might as well not exist as far as you are concerned. If your past preferences and selections indicate you are primarily interested in qualities X, Y, and Z, the conventional response from dating sites is to just offer up as much XYZ as possible to the exclusion of other things (until the dating pool is exhausted anyways). This is merely adding back in more of the other dating pool that people might not instantly select. Nothing forces you to select them either. No one is talking about removing your XYZ options.

 

Also, as I mentioned before, these techniques (besides just broading the potential pool of candidates for matches) also have psychological responses in causing people who are on the edge of one's dating preferences to appear more favorable in response (7 in a sea of 10s vs in a sea of 5s blah blah). Thus by promoting more matches in general, instead of exclusively aiming for "higher quality matches", more individuals see results.

 

(Ignoring the whole argument about people's shallow vs true preferences, which I talked also about in a previous post)

 

Analogous thing, but years ago people were complaining that purely random music services (ala Pandora) weren't random enough. The eventual solution was to make the music selection LESS random, and more evenly spaced, which feels to human beings (who implicitly suck at probability) at least to be more random and not less.

If you're looking to buy something online and filter for a specific manufacturer do you also want to see products from company X, Y, and Z also? If no then why not? You're just adding back in more of the other product line-ups of the other companies that people might not instantly select. Nothing forces you to buy the products from other companies either. No one is talking about removing your selected criteria. I mean who cares if you think that Samsung sells the most enticing SSD, Micron, Corsair, and Patriot deserve to have their products viewed too!

[MoonSpot]

23 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Yup. I can't help that I'm only attracted to other men.

And here we've come full circle.  Whats good for the goose is denied to the gander.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Had to double check to see the source wasn't Onion. What is this? an online dating version of communist propaganda? an individual shouldn't have a power of choice but enforced?

[Amazonsucks]

This was predicted in many dystopian novels and is part of the playbook for countries attempting to undermine other nations with unrestricted warfare. Follow the money for these studies and see where it goes.

 

This is an obvious attempt to further destroy peoples' will in the west. You condition people to deny what they want, adopt a backwards SJW agenda that does nothing but break down the social fabric of a nation, then its ripe to plunder.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, TechGod said:

Only 300 years ago? Fuuuuuck off mate. 

Are you white? Do you own any slaves? Did your father own any slaves? Did his father own any slaves? How far back do you have to go to find out none of them owned any slaves? Now multiply that with large majority of people and you get the picture. But hey, blame all white people because that's trendy these days and if you're a "PoC" no one will object in fear of being called a "racist". That's the real "fuuuuuuck off mate". Nevermind the nazi era in Europe. Again, they are throwing all whites in the same box even though majority of Europe was white and majority of it was under nazi oppression. But hey, lets just throw us all in the same bag with "Racists" label on it anyway. This is why I don't really give a damn if someone calls me a racist these days because they are flinging this label around like monkeys fling feces at each other. It lost its meaning pretty much entirely. Just like so many other labels thrown around by SJW's...

[Amazonsucks]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

 

I kneel every morning to His supreme holyness, and pray that He may give us a thousand years of Trump Administration.

(please lord Trump pick me to become your loyal Space Marine)

Hopefully he sends you in a dropship to liberate the Chinese slaves who made everything you own.

[ivan134]

Lol. Muh white genocide

[ivan134]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm sure you'd have told the European Jewish community the same thing in the 1930's when people were talking about "the Jewish problem".

 

For reference, we have Don Lemon on CNN recently saying

 

"We have to start doing something about them". So long as people like you ignore or even approve of comments like this, people like me will worry. Because people like me actually know history and know that shit like this cannot be ignored.

 

But by all means. Tell me how I am racist for being angry over a racist comment towards my own ethnicity.

Hilarious that the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is offended by facts. Go look up stats on terrorism in the US. Spoiler: it's not brown people Americans should be worried about. 

 

Also, lol at unironically using Simon of Arabia as a source. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

If you're looking to buy something online and filter for a specific manufacturer do you also want to see products from company X, Y, and Z also? If no then why not? You're just adding back in more of the other product line-ups of the other companies that people might not instantly select. Nothing forces you to buy the products from other companies either. No one is talking about removing your selected criteria. I mean who cares if you think that Samsung sells the most enticing SSD, Micron, Corsair, and Patriot deserve to have their products viewed too!

The analogy falls apart where you realize criteria that are explicitly filtered are filtered (ala male looking for male or female vise versa). This is talking ONLY about your implicit preferences, and the biases that learning algorithms obtain by following them.

 

Ala, yes if you go on Amazon and for 3 years only buy Samsung SSD's, while Samsung SSDs might still be a disproportionately large fraction of the advertising space, you still want to see other options until you explicitly tell Amazon to only show you stuff from Samsung. Otherwise you wouldn't know if some other SSD went on such an AMAZING sale that you just HAD to get it regardless of your previous experience.

 

In fact, it would be illegal for a consumer market place to do that level of extensive filtering without EXPLICIT consumer request. Google has been fined for it already numerous times.

[ravenshrike]

7 hours ago, DVA said:

We're all black, when the lights go out. 

At least until someone gene-tailors their kid for bio-luminescent skin. Or uses CRISPR to do it to themselves.

[DVA]

3 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

At least until someone gene-tailors their kid for bio-luminescent skin. Or uses CRISPR to do it to themselves.

dude, what the fuck

 

XD

[TechGod]

38 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Are you white? Do you own any slaves? Did your father own any slaves? Did his father own any slaves? How far back do you have to go to find out none of them owned any slaves? Now multiply that with large majority of people and you get the picture. But hey, blame all white people because that's trendy these days and if you're a "PoC" no one will object in fear of being called a "racist". That's the real "fuuuuuuck off mate". Nevermind the nazi era in Europe. Again, they are throwing all whites in the same box even though majority of Europe was white and majority of it was under nazi oppression. But hey, lets just throw us all in the same bag with "Racists" label on it anyway. This is why I don't really give a damn if someone calls me a racist these days because they are flinging this label around like monkeys fling feces at each other. It lost its meaning pretty much entirely. Just like so many other labels thrown around by SJW's...

Nah man you’re lost and confused and in your built up frenzy you fucking think I’m talking about slaves when I’m not talking about that at all. When did segregation end again? Please remind me. 

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, DVA said:

dude, what the fuck

 

XD

I mean, dont we all want catpeople? I see no downside to this.

 

Spoiler

Note: please dont show me any downsides to this

 

[imreloadin]

12 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The analogy falls apart where you realize criteria that are explicitly filtered are filtered (ala male looking for male or female vise versa). This is talking ONLY about your implicit preferences, and the biases that learning algorithms obtain by following them.

 

Ala, yes if you go on Amazon and for 3 years only buy Samsung SSD's, while Samsung SSDs might still be a disproportionately large fraction of the advertising space, you still want to see other options until you explicitly tell Amazon to only show you stuff from Samsung. Otherwise you wouldn't know if some other SSD went on such an AMAZING sale that you just HAD to get it regardless of your previous experience.

Then make it something you can explicitly filter, problem solved. I still don't understand why it matters if my preference is implicit or explicit, it's still my preference at the end of the day...

[MoonSpot]

6 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I mean, dont we all want catpeople? I see no downside to this.

 

 

Not sure what you're talking about, but regardless I believe there is some merit to it.

[Spotty]

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I mean, dont we all want catpeople? I see no downside to this.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Note: please dont show me any downsides to this

 

No. Please no.
 

 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

If you're looking to buy something online and filter for a specific manufacturer do you also want to see products from company X, Y, and Z also? If no then why not? You're just adding back in more of the other product line-ups of the other companies that people might not instantly select. Nothing forces you to buy the products from other companies either. No one is talking about removing your selected criteria. I mean who cares if you think that Samsung sells the most enticing SSD, Micron, Corsair, and Patriot deserve to have their products viewed too!

Not if I am trying to look for Samsung ssds. That is just irritating and would make me use a site that has filters that work. If people want to have it be more open then let them but forcing it is just dumb. 

[RejZoR]

17 minutes ago, TechGod said:

Nah man you’re lost and confused and in your built up frenzy you fucking think I’m talking about slaves when I’m not talking about that at all. When did segregation end again? Please remind me. 

Assuming entire world is Murica...

[Brooksie359]

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Assuming entire world is Murica...

I mean based on the context of the conversation it did sound like it was talking about America tbh. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

28 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Not if I am trying to look for Samsung ssds. That is just irritating and would make me use a site that has filters that work. If people want to have it be more open then let them but forcing it is just dumb. 

He was being facetious. My reply (below) being still valid.

 

52 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The analogy falls apart where you realize criteria that are explicitly filtered are filtered (ala male looking for male or female vise versa). This is talking ONLY about your implicit preferences, and the biases that learning algorithms obtain by following them.

 

Ala, yes if you go on Amazon and for 3 years only buy Samsung SSD's, while Samsung SSDs might still be a disproportionately large fraction of the advertising space, you still want to see other options until you explicitly tell Amazon to only show you stuff from Samsung. Otherwise you wouldn't know if some other SSD went on such an AMAZING sale that you just HAD to get it regardless of your previous experience.

 

In fact, it would be illegal for a consumer market place to do that level of extensive filtering without EXPLICIT consumer request. Google has been fined for it already numerous times.

 

39 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Then make it something you can explicitly filter, problem solved. I still don't understand why it matters if my preference is implicit or explicit, it's still my preference at the end of the day...

Honestly, the problem is that if you make it an explicit filter people close themselves off from the possibilities (filtering on the edge versus over-filtered). But to be fair, that is exactly what many dating sites do ala "Farmers-Only", "Christian Mingle", "420 Singles" etc etc. Those services already exist, and at least it's upfront to both people that that is the type of filtering each person wants.

 

The problem with implicit is that the company is assuming your preference based on past action. And you are assuming the company is correctly deciphering those assumptions. Explicit takes that responsibility on yourself. Aka, if (hypothetically) you did want to be racist in your filtering, well that is rather different than assuming from past data that you "are racist in your preferences". Assuming racism is generally a bad thing after all.

 

[asus killer]

i had this discussion somewhere else, there is just one human race, so dating outside your race would be more like bestiality so that's some weird app 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

He was being facetious. My reply (below) being still valid.

 

 

Honestly, the problem is that if you make it an explicit filter people close themselves off from the possibilities (filtering on the edge versus over-filtered). But to be fair, that is exactly what many dating sites do ala "Farmers-Only", "Christian Mingle", "420 Singles" etc etc. Those services already exist, and at least it's upfront to both people that that is the type of filtering each person wants.

I have always wondered if people would get offended if they made a whitepoeplemeet*com. I have a feeling people would for some reason. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

5 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have always wondered if people would get offended if they made a whitepoeplemeet*com. I have a feeling people would for some reason. 

There were a few of them that came out around 2015-2016, but as far as I can tell, most of them were trolls and never actually had serious funding to keep them going.

 

And of course some people got offended. Side note (not sure how I feel about it tbh)... blackpeoplemeet claims not racist because any one can join the platform regardless.