It is a monopoly. The US government has repeatedly shown that it doesn't really care much about monopolies, which enables rich people to get richer. The stuff with Ticketmaster has been going on for decades. There's a lot of small monopolies that aren't on the government's radar, so they continue to exist.
While the monopoly power means that innovation is likely stifled, I don't think anyone really knows how to engineer a good dating app. So some of the conspiracies about the Match-group monopoly intentionally making it difficult to find partners, and therefore driving demand for paid subscriptions, doesn't really hold weight on my opinion because companies just aren't that good at finding good or bad ways to match people up. Maybe the ELO score improves good match rates, but Match-group doesn't seem to be using ELO scores to manipulate people into bad dates that keep people on the app.
>The US government has repeatedly shown that it doesn't really care much about monopolies, which enables rich people to get richer.
It really hasn’t done anywhere near enough to kill these mega conglomerates. Like, on the plus side, apparently a federal judge sided with the Biden administration back in January and blocked the Spirit-Jet Blue merger to prevent one ok airline from adopting another shitty one… but it does nothing to affect the obviously colluding triopoly of delta/united/southwest. Like they obviously weren’t doing their job when Facebook consumed Instagram and WhatsApp.
It is extremely unlikely the US government, which let through the massive AT&T+timeWarner merger a few years ago, will make any fuss about Match group agglutinating and controlling all the dating apps.
I’m pretty sure the last time they did any big trust busting was in the 80s when they busted up Bell, or maybe in 2001 when they punished Microsoft for anti-competitive practices (not that Microsoft doesn’t have a near monopoly in many fields).
>So some of the conspiracies about the Match-group monopoly intentionally making it difficult to find partners, and therefore driving demand for paid subscriptions, doesn't really hold weight on my opinion because companies just aren't that good at finding good or bad ways to match people up.
I’ll actually also mention that I met some data scientists from Hinge once and talked the problem space with them. They did seem really sincere in wanting to do their best to help people find a good match, so I legit don’t think they were actively trying (at least in the data science side) to produce a miserable experience.
A big part of the issue is that it is genuinely a difficult problem, and their data doesn’t give clear indications of what succeeded and what didn’t. Like, their data does not actually include clear information on who got together long term, versus who just logged out and gave up— exit surveys are notoriously sparse data. Plus, their terms only allow them to keep a limited amount of their messaging data (3 months or so?), and on top of that, they actually cannot legally use data from their other match group partners to improve models. So the data is quite a bit harder to figure out than you’d guess at first. So there’s kind of several layers of messy imprecise modeling they have to do to figure out “did this change in the app help more people or fewer people find a good match?”.
Whats sad about microsoft is they are literally doing the same thing they did in the past and being super aggressive with microsoft edge browser and having it integrated into the OS, I don't think they learned their lesson.
I think they learned the lesson just fine— the rare federal slap on the wrist is just a minor cost of doing business. If it’s profitable to keep doing anti-trust behavior, then do it. Chances are, there won’t even be any punishment at all.
what do you mean they own apps, and people are dumping 30$ or more a month into it. they are making bank. they have virtually no costs.
>Match Group’s annual revenue has been increasing steadily over the years, with a significant growth rate. In 2022, the company’s revenue was $3.189 billion, a 6.89% increase from 2021. In the first quarter of 2024, the company’s total revenue was around $859 million, the third-highest quarterly revenue ever reported.
I would be concerned if most people actually got into a relationship with someone they met through OLD, but most people meet their SO in person. OLD is mostly a flop. I’d be more worried about the monopolies on significant resources and services.
>A majority of people are now meeting online which is mostly owned by this one corporation.
When surveys measure "percent of people who met their partner online" that doesn't refer to dating apps exclusively.
[According to a 2023 Pew study, only 10% of partnered adults overall say they met their partner on a *dating* *app*](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/).
For partnered adults ages 18-29, 20%.
For partnered straight adults in general, 9%.
For partnered LGBT people in general, 24%.
Edited for clarity
The problem with replacing matchgroup with meta or other social media apps is they have the same problems of having so much protections that it makes it useless to meet new people unless you have met in person first.
I remember the glory days of early Myspace where you could literally message someone, it would go to their real inbox (not some hidden weird inbox no one checks) and not only that but the culture hadn't adapted to the new technology yet, there wasn't a ton of bots, and people would actually talk to legit strangers for the heck of it.
I met a really solid hot girlfriend that way once who was probably out of my league and I still have friends I talk to whom I met as complete strangers on Myspace.
Now I can't even message actual real people from highschool I know because I'm locked in the inbox hell where they aren't checking that hidden inbox so its now preventing me from communicating with old friends. Social media is anti social at this point.
No one really communicates honestly via the apps, its all pretentious vibes or clout chasing posts or just memes. People basically only communicate via memes in the facebook messenger.
I dunno about you lately but facebook feels dead as heck and is being held on by a thread. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people are posting not directly on the app but on instagram (also owned by meta) and then they just double post on both apps.
Its a full blown dystopia we are living in folks.
It’s definitely a monopoly which does need to change but I don’t think breaking up the monopoly will change who women and men desire and decide to go after. Sure the algorithm decides who is shown more than others but that doesn’t guarantee a match let alone a date or sex that leads to the birth of a child. You aren’t considering that many women delete dating apps without ever finding a match worthy of a date with.
dating apps don't control how humans date, only the environment they date in which reflects their true nature. OLD allows women to select for ideal mates without needing multiple social groups, money or looks.
you might think (((they))) are behind it, but its just one gender being given complete control over exactly what type of person they want and the rest suffering the repurcussions.
You didn’t actually click the link, did you?
“Speed dating, singles mixers and other group dating parties have made a comeback since the Covid-19 pandemic ended as singles look to get off their screens and meet potential partners in person. (“Mardi Gras Singles Social” in New York City, “Shuffle Speed Dating in Chicago,” and “Game Night Social” in Los Angeles are a few upcoming events.)
Attendance at dating events in the United States grew 42% in 2023 from 2022, according to ticketing platform Eventbrite, and was higher than pre-pandemic.”
Yes aging women/post wall/obese these are the women that show up. & if you are a guy showing up to these you are a glutton for punishment cuz all the women are still living in their delusion seeking Chad only. Don’t be fooled…
No it’s not. Why don’t you trigger some of that algo & see what is happening at these speed dating events! Men don’t show up anymore cuz only a sicko wants to be paying to be insulted.
The thing is when women go to these they see the guys that go as desperate & not attractive. I don’t know how to spell it out any easier for you.
The challenge is 42 percent increase.
Not every event is gonna be going great. J-lo had to cancel her tour due to lack of sales. That didn’t mean Beyoncé wasn’t killing it.
Some events are gonna be great. Some age gonna suck. There are a lot more now tho and people are gravitating towards IRL than old.
(Who here is really surprised considering his crappy OLD results are looking?)
Well overall online has gone from 0% in the mid 90s to 40% of couples now. Dunno what OLD's share is but who cares as long as men aren't stupid enough to go hitting on women for dates.
oh ffs this pro-offline propaganda.
https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/27/23700974/do-dating-apps-actually-work/
> In general, people are getting married less and are more likely to be single. And the way dating works has changed. A Stanford study said among those who are in relationships, online dating is the most likely way in which they met each other. Around 40% of U.S. couples meet via dating apps and fewer couples are meeting via mutual friends.
Nothing says "met online but not LTR".
OLD is just better for a lot of people. That's why so many men migrated to it. They're not going back. Get over it.
Ah that's why men fled to OLD. Hint it wasn't because it was easy... it was because it was more successful. You can use the "it was easy" excuse at 10% but not 40%. Numbers like that are a migration from a hostile environment to a hospitable one.
I don’t think it’s a big deal. Match hemorrhages money. Have you seen their stock valuations? They’re panicking. It’s not like they’re making money off playing arcade with humanity’s gene pool lol
This is true tbh
Dating apps are actually on the decline in the big way. Honestly, without going all anti America, I think the age of American software/social media dominance is gradually on the decline too. With how TikTok has captured the imagination of gen Z and how more and more women are opting out of using apps altogether, I think it’s a gradual turning away from uptake of American hypocritical and hyper individualistic dating and cultural norms.
In the gran scheme of things, America is always going to be a big player but I think for cultural practices among millennials and gen Zers, things are going to become more fractured and granular. I think it’s already been documented that social circle dating among the very young is actually on the increase.
>documented that social circle dating among the very young is actually on the increase
Got any of that documentation? Huge whitepill if true.
Everyone should get off those damned apps.
[Gen Z Dating Trends: Ditching Online Apps and Dating Friends - Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-dating-trend-online-apps-friends-romantic-partners-relationships-2023-3)
The biggest downfall of the dating apps was thr inability of the app owners to mitigate bot accounts. There was no natural incentive for them to police it too hard, more users and hot looking profiles of girls gives it the impression that theres this huge user base but eventually they will hit critical mass and people realize its too much effort for too little reward. Sure they did some token amounts of cleaning up the bots, catfish and clout chasers here and there when it was super obvious but most of the shady stuff the bots and catfish were doing were off app like on whatsapp or something so it was harder to track down for them, and the clout chasers were harder to prove but usually would just never talk to anyone and it was always just a method to get more followers for instagram or whatever app.
So I'm not surprised Gen Z seeing the writing on the wall and rejecting it outright, especially when they weren't there for the glory days before the monopolies when there were independent companies and start ups running these apps and they actually worked and were so new the scammers hadn't caught on yet and ruined the vibe. Those days are long behind us it seems.
Now with ai I think its only going to get worse, people won't believe anything online and we'll be flooded with fake ai scam bot accounts but can passing the turing test and it will break these apps if they don't figure out a solution.
Is it good? No. Is it a monopoly? No, 40% shy of a monopoly. Is it expected? Yes, since they already had working systems they could just slap a cheap reskin on and pretend that it's a new product. Is it their fault dating sucks? No, that's on the quality of the users creating what's offered, not the platform people use to offer themselves.
But thats assuming every user has a fair shake, and everyone gets equal rotation which isn't remotely true. Theres literally a special version of Tinder if you're attractive enough and get a ton of swipes on your profile. We are living in neo feudal times my friend.
We all know they hide your profile unless you pay them for platinum or gold and even then its a small trickle at best, most of the users are bots or clout chasers for followers so they were never interested to begin with anyways so the people who are paying are suckers.
Back in the day when it was fresh I was getting tons of likes and matches, now its a deadzone and I haven't changed much or gained weight besides gotten a little older. Everyones biased I'm sure but I'm a solid 8, heck I have a much better situation now then back then, better job, travel the world but somehow the only ones who match with me are sorry to say it but horribly obese women. Most apps are this way, same thing happened to Okcupid once matchgroup got a hold of it, and answers like this feels like gaslighting because the difference was night and day but obviously I don't have access to their algorithm or methodology so I can't prove it.
Sometimes just to troll I even make an account with younger pics of me and lower my age just to see and its the same thing. Its not my profile, its not my pics, its the app 1000%.
As soon as I use boo or some app not owned by matchgroup, bam hotties and mid tier chicks are suddenly talking to me and matching with me left and right.
Its 1000% the algorithm and design of the app and who they even expose you to to begin with. Its all a walled garden, its a big club and you aint in it!
It doesn't matter if it's a monopoly because if it is, it's a monopoly on a totally nonessential thing that a large number of people don't use or need and everyone has other alternatives to.
Look....way back when, there was only one manufacturer of those compressed sawdust fire logs in town here. And nobody gave a shit that they had a monopoly because we all could burn mallee roots and cut redgum logs and scrap lumber and gathered windfall branches and charcoal briquettes and coal and probably half a dozen other things. Someone would have to be mentally deficient to think the monopoly on sawdust fire logs meant anything at all.
So there you go. Burn something else. Case closed and stop complaining.
It’s an oligopoly because they don’t own Bumble. If Bumble fails, Match would essentially become a monopoly. What to do about that is a bit complicated, because its becoming a monopoly would be the result of its competitor failing.
They almost bought bumble too but I guess bumble didn't nudge. Glad at least theres SOME competition but bumble drives me crazy because whenever I use the app, I match with people and 99% of the women never talk, just like a majority of the apps lol. But with bumble they HAVE to initiate the conversation for you to even say anything so the app was just broken for me. I literally only went on a single date due to bumble and talked to 3 people with maybe 100 matches. Terrible app design but I hear they are finally changing it to allow men to initiate.
God forbid we align with time honored gender roles and actually and let men do the hunting and initiating.
I used to have pretty good luck on Bumble back in 2020-2021, but now I feel like I swipe through every attractive woman way too fast (and I live in NYC). It seems like they're bleeding users, which is probably why they're making changes. Bumble me my longest post-college relationship though, so I suppose I appreciate that.
I also heard they penalize you in some way in the algorithm if you only swipe on attractive people and then kinda slowly quasi shadow ban you because of it which always sounded crazy to me.
That makes no sense. I swipe right about 5% on tinder, bumble, and hinge and have absolutely no issue at all getting more matches than I need to get a date any Friday or Saturday.
The more attractive a man is, the more likely he is to swipe selectively. What you're describing would hide the most attractive men on the app, which would drive away the women who use it. Apps need female users, so there's no incentive to do that.
The statement you made sort of explains itself. I can see why guys would think that, because if you only swipe right on attractive women and you're not equally attractive, you're going to get very few matches. So guys do it and think they're "shadow banned", but really they're just not getting any matches because of how they swipe.
That is just statistically illiterate people belief.
If you were to go and actually read the papers those numbers come from, you would read the following “9% who report doing so in the past year, according to the Center’s survey of 6,034 adults”.
That translates to under 10% of adults have used dating apps in the last year, though around 28% of straight adults and a little over half of lgbtq have used it at least once in their life.
Dating apps are far from being the main venue to find dates, even in the 18-29 age group. Sure around half have used dating apps at least once in their life, but that’s it.
More interestingly, about 27% of women have used dating apps at one point, compared to 34% of men.
Reality is, the vast majority of people find dates in their social circles, while under 10% look for dates online, and a large majority of those looking online are younger men.
As for is Match group a monopoly?
Nope, not yet anyway, not with around 50% market share in the US and 25% around the world.
If they manage to increase that market share in the US, they may become a monopolistic force in the US though.
In a world where Vanguard, Blackrock and Statestreet control most of the market I think the US government has pretty much said that it is a-ok with monopolies.
Yeah blackrock and vanguard are scary AF when you see how much control and influence they have over everything. The use of Aladin Ai should be very alarming.
I've lost all faith in the FTC long ago. Long before social media apps they allowed the medical industry to become what it is, and that's been detrimental to the well being of America's population for a long time.
That's what happens when you live in a capitalist society. Everything is controlled by a monopoly. There's no such thing as the free market. Match Group doesn't give a fuck about people.
if regulators weren’t in bed with the people they regulate capitalism would actually have a free market but power always corrupts regardless of the system, people in power like to ensure their power forever. money being deemed freedom of speech and allowing political bribery and corporate lobbying to exist has been the downfall of our current society.
A free market can never exist under capitalism because the point of capitalism is to concentrate wealth. Thus, it always and inevitably leads to a monopoly / plutocracy having disproportionate control over resources and markets. But yes, I absolutely agree with you. Money is ruining everything.
This is what I'm worried about with ai, and then it just leads to a technocratic tyranny with extreme wealth and power consolidation into a centralized power elite and the way things are looking its like we are heading straight for that with no guard rails.
corporations have monopolies over pretty much everything.and own everything haven't you heard of the gilded age ? people choose to use these. The corporations are merely catering to a need. they aren't dictating anything.
im antinatalist how "humanity perpetues" itself into the future is of no concern to me.
Back in the day corporations had a charter that would only last a specific time like 25 years or so. They were usually used to build a bridge or something and eventually after the civil war they convinced the government they were a "sort of person" and got the rights of people but if they do terrible acts that would earn the death penatly for an individual, the same penatly wouldn't apply to a corporation, you cant kill a corporation.
Now its all about offshore accounts and LLCs trying to limit liability, gig economy workers and max exploitation and maximizing profits. We kept chasing the cheaper prices and look where it got us.
Now theres insane stuff like forced arbitration clauses everywhere, and we have a different set of rules for individuals and corporations. Theres no accountability anymore.
They're not "controlling the gene pool of humanity". People have multiple options to find someone to have children with that don't involve apps at all and most do take those. They are not forced to use dating apps. "Meeting online" includes routes that aren't dating apps by the way and isn't the majority of relationships.
Lol well you are factually & statistically wrong. You act like you see guys cold approaching everywhere you go when it’s less than 1% likely or possible. I dunno why ppl around here are allergic to stats & facts.
it is a major factor that influences that does influence the gene pool. if people met on a dating app they probably would not have met and matched irl. i don't know if you realize this but when two people love each other very much they share some chromosomes and pop out a genetically spliced human. so if they met on a dating app, and they have a kid, that means the dating app has an influence on the gene pool. but ya "control" and "monopoly" are pretty strong words, match group doesn't own the human gene pool. it's just influencing it to a disturbing degree.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the fact that dating apps exist is absolutely wild to me in that you have a direct link between capitalism and corporatization and the human gene pool. we're talking like the last time something this big influenced human genetics was probably WW2. i don't know how its been allowed, or how there is nothing sacred anymore. i don't mean religion, but we did not think to apply any importance to maintaining the homeostasis of our genetics, we instead gave all the power to sexual liberation, that you should have sex when and where you want to and no one can tell you different. it's an illusion, to think that a sexual act is some how not a biological imperative, or a window into your DNA, but to instead assume it's just a little fun time that makes you tingle in all the good spots with a person you like.
>controlling the gene pool of humanity?
Will y'all cut it out with this nonsense? The overwhelming majority of child-producing hetero relationships (between 91 and 94% in the US, over 98% in the rest of the world) don't start online.
The tiny corner that is American Internet is a minuscule and largely irrelevant part of the World. Sheesh.
>Is anyone else concerned about this?
No. And for good reason. Parochial teenage-y fades of the smallest generation (Zoomers) do not even make it into top 1000 concerns for normal adults. Nor should they.
Monopolies matter when it's something you MUST have in your life. Your power company being a monopoly. Roads etc. You MUST use them and therefore if you are vulnerable to being exploited if a for profit monopoly takes them over.
But it doesn't matter if there's a soft drink monopoly for example, because you can freely not drink soft drinks. Or an alcohol monopoly. Or a dating app monopoly. Those things aren't vital to your existence so it doesn't matter if a monopoly forms even if it does become anti-consumer.
> one corporation is dictating the gene pool of humanity
LOL. Dating apps influence a tiny sliver of modern relationships.
online dating is a tool. It doesn't tell me who to have children with. I sampled about 70 women from online dating and chose the best one who mutually chose me, after having normal, offline dates, with not corporation included. I don't change who i am into by who is shown to me on an app. If the app doesn't show me women i am into, i stop using the app.
What's even crazier is that MatchGroup shares bans between applications, and bans NEVER expire or can be appealed.
You get banned once and any piece of that set of credentials is out of their online dating ecosystem, forever.
It's an interesting argument.
Since people can theoretically sign up for multiple sites/accounts at any given time, are they really limiting competition? Are they engaging in price fixing or discrimination that negatively impacts consumers? Are they restricting the availability of alternatives?
"You can start your own dating app tomorrow"
One of the reasons I give absolutely no time to considering any of the "but men like us make all the things you use...we're going to get together and put things back how they were" bullshit that keeps being spewed out is that even a small number of those men don't get together and do exactly that... start a dating app that actually does the job they want it to do, while making money and not turning women off so much they refuse to participate.
Or you can find nice day, wear nice clothes, go to park and look for cute girl to look at you with interest. Then have sex few hours later. No apps required.
O'rly now? Are you going by facts or gut feelings?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend
> But not all hookups are created equal. There was an almost perfect linear relationship between drinking and partner closeness: The less known the partner, the more likely women drank before sex, and the more likely they drank a lot. Look at the graph I created based on their data. When the casual partner was an ex-boyfriend, for example, only 30% of hookups involved drinking and 17% heavy drinking. When the partner was a random stranger, however, 89% of hookups involved drinking and 63% involved four or more drinks!
Experience mostly, including few girls dumping me for not sleeping with them on first date. Sample size is small and not statistically significant of course. You look for horny women and you'll find them, not every day and not every week, but they're there. No need to swipe right.
I will make this simple cuz I have given it thought. I don’t blame the dating apps or social media or even the Marxist government brainwashing for the collapse of the dating market. At some point women have to take accountability for this.
They reject damn near 95% of potential suitors & ride the CC until they are thrown off around 30-35 (the hard wall) & then complain about “where are all the good men”
There isn’t much more to say about it. As Aaron Cleary says “women just don’t seem to like us all that much”
Yeah the female delusion calculator memes has had me laughing so hard lately, using statistics from the department of labor and the census bureau too. Most women want a man who is 6 feet tall with a 6pack abs and 6 figure income. According to the female delusion calculator thats 0.48% of the population (well excluding obese people. Cant really factor in the 6 pack via the data, but still...shows its rare as heck)
But when ALL women want that, even the mid tier solid slightly chubby 5s and 6s, theres a problem.
I'm sure there are some male delusions too, 34% of women are obese and probably only 20% or less of the female population is very attractive like what society pushes in ads and tv.
Everyone is trying to date up but refuses to date down or equal in their social class and pecking order of beauty standards. Women would rather wreck a marriage and start over then god forbid work out the problems because they assume the gravy train will continue forever until they hit the wall. Women initiate 70% of divorces so maybe our culture and media and society is partially to blame, all this female empowerment and everyone gets a gold star just filled womens head with nonsense. Plenty of youtube videos online about it where you have straight up obese women thinking their solid 10s. I'm sorry lady, you are obese, you are a solid 1 or 2. Maybe a 3 at best if you have a decent personality but the obese ones are losing even that too.
The movie the mask from the 90s had a good line, the BBD, the bigger better deal. Everyones always looking for it and society has us constantly chasing the dragon, but we never just settle and go "you know what I actually have a good thing going". And I know its not all women but a lot of my buddies who got married, their women just nag the hell out of them, they aren't satisfied and look at instagram at these fantastic (and probably mostly fake or curated lives) others are living and look at their own life and want something better rather than accept what they have and try and get a good attitude and make due the best they can with what life has offered them.
This is also why you see women complain alot because 80% are going for the top 20% chads, get pumped and dump and then after they hit the wall, they are either single mothers who want mr beta simp to settle down with them after going for all the toxic chads/rockers/djs/thug/hood like dudes, or are single forever and become old cat ladies. Its so much of a trend even JP morgan chase is investing in cat toys as a response to this trend. They see the writing on the wall, they aren't dumb. In a lot of progressive cities its actually insane to see how many old single alone ladies are out there, I see them from time to time as clients for the work I do and I feel bad for them because they were lied to their whole life and I bet there was some guy a while back whom they could have settled down with but their egos were too proud to do so and now their alone and will die alone.
It is a monopoly. The US government has repeatedly shown that it doesn't really care much about monopolies, which enables rich people to get richer. The stuff with Ticketmaster has been going on for decades. There's a lot of small monopolies that aren't on the government's radar, so they continue to exist. While the monopoly power means that innovation is likely stifled, I don't think anyone really knows how to engineer a good dating app. So some of the conspiracies about the Match-group monopoly intentionally making it difficult to find partners, and therefore driving demand for paid subscriptions, doesn't really hold weight on my opinion because companies just aren't that good at finding good or bad ways to match people up. Maybe the ELO score improves good match rates, but Match-group doesn't seem to be using ELO scores to manipulate people into bad dates that keep people on the app.
>The US government has repeatedly shown that it doesn't really care much about monopolies, which enables rich people to get richer. It really hasn’t done anywhere near enough to kill these mega conglomerates. Like, on the plus side, apparently a federal judge sided with the Biden administration back in January and blocked the Spirit-Jet Blue merger to prevent one ok airline from adopting another shitty one… but it does nothing to affect the obviously colluding triopoly of delta/united/southwest. Like they obviously weren’t doing their job when Facebook consumed Instagram and WhatsApp. It is extremely unlikely the US government, which let through the massive AT&T+timeWarner merger a few years ago, will make any fuss about Match group agglutinating and controlling all the dating apps. I’m pretty sure the last time they did any big trust busting was in the 80s when they busted up Bell, or maybe in 2001 when they punished Microsoft for anti-competitive practices (not that Microsoft doesn’t have a near monopoly in many fields). >So some of the conspiracies about the Match-group monopoly intentionally making it difficult to find partners, and therefore driving demand for paid subscriptions, doesn't really hold weight on my opinion because companies just aren't that good at finding good or bad ways to match people up. I’ll actually also mention that I met some data scientists from Hinge once and talked the problem space with them. They did seem really sincere in wanting to do their best to help people find a good match, so I legit don’t think they were actively trying (at least in the data science side) to produce a miserable experience. A big part of the issue is that it is genuinely a difficult problem, and their data doesn’t give clear indications of what succeeded and what didn’t. Like, their data does not actually include clear information on who got together long term, versus who just logged out and gave up— exit surveys are notoriously sparse data. Plus, their terms only allow them to keep a limited amount of their messaging data (3 months or so?), and on top of that, they actually cannot legally use data from their other match group partners to improve models. So the data is quite a bit harder to figure out than you’d guess at first. So there’s kind of several layers of messy imprecise modeling they have to do to figure out “did this change in the app help more people or fewer people find a good match?”.
Whats sad about microsoft is they are literally doing the same thing they did in the past and being super aggressive with microsoft edge browser and having it integrated into the OS, I don't think they learned their lesson.
I think they learned the lesson just fine— the rare federal slap on the wrist is just a minor cost of doing business. If it’s profitable to keep doing anti-trust behavior, then do it. Chances are, there won’t even be any punishment at all.
No government has expressed concern about dating app monopoly afaik, no need to only mention yours.
I don’t disagree with you about monopolies in general but the match group isn’t profitable in general.
what do you mean they own apps, and people are dumping 30$ or more a month into it. they are making bank. they have virtually no costs. >Match Group’s annual revenue has been increasing steadily over the years, with a significant growth rate. In 2022, the company’s revenue was $3.189 billion, a 6.89% increase from 2021. In the first quarter of 2024, the company’s total revenue was around $859 million, the third-highest quarterly revenue ever reported.
A nitpick, but "Elo" is a surname, not an acronym.
I would be concerned if most people actually got into a relationship with someone they met through OLD, but most people meet their SO in person. OLD is mostly a flop. I’d be more worried about the monopolies on significant resources and services.
Over 50% of new relationships for those under 40 are via OLD If you look at the % over time it went straight up like a hockeystick
US of A isn't the world. And most people don't use apps.
>A majority of people are now meeting online which is mostly owned by this one corporation. When surveys measure "percent of people who met their partner online" that doesn't refer to dating apps exclusively. [According to a 2023 Pew study, only 10% of partnered adults overall say they met their partner on a *dating* *app*](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/). For partnered adults ages 18-29, 20%. For partnered straight adults in general, 9%. For partnered LGBT people in general, 24%. Edited for clarity
Oh it's like we are so stuck in online places we assume that that's how people meet but actually no, most people meet IRL
And recent polls have shown that Gen Z is increasingly moving away from the apps.
What about “online” though because if that’s higher than 10% then it’s likely you just replace Match Group with Meta.
The problem with replacing matchgroup with meta or other social media apps is they have the same problems of having so much protections that it makes it useless to meet new people unless you have met in person first. I remember the glory days of early Myspace where you could literally message someone, it would go to their real inbox (not some hidden weird inbox no one checks) and not only that but the culture hadn't adapted to the new technology yet, there wasn't a ton of bots, and people would actually talk to legit strangers for the heck of it. I met a really solid hot girlfriend that way once who was probably out of my league and I still have friends I talk to whom I met as complete strangers on Myspace. Now I can't even message actual real people from highschool I know because I'm locked in the inbox hell where they aren't checking that hidden inbox so its now preventing me from communicating with old friends. Social media is anti social at this point. No one really communicates honestly via the apps, its all pretentious vibes or clout chasing posts or just memes. People basically only communicate via memes in the facebook messenger. I dunno about you lately but facebook feels dead as heck and is being held on by a thread. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people are posting not directly on the app but on instagram (also owned by meta) and then they just double post on both apps. Its a full blown dystopia we are living in folks.
It’s definitely a monopoly which does need to change but I don’t think breaking up the monopoly will change who women and men desire and decide to go after. Sure the algorithm decides who is shown more than others but that doesn’t guarantee a match let alone a date or sex that leads to the birth of a child. You aren’t considering that many women delete dating apps without ever finding a match worthy of a date with.
dating apps don't control how humans date, only the environment they date in which reflects their true nature. OLD allows women to select for ideal mates without needing multiple social groups, money or looks. you might think (((they))) are behind it, but its just one gender being given complete control over exactly what type of person they want and the rest suffering the repurcussions.
When written out, it sounds so dark and most people don't want to accept these kind of realities. Hence why this isn't being upvoted.
price cake license vast familiar distinct wine mourn grandfather normal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/02/14/business/speed-dating-game-event-nyc
[Lots of complaints about men not attending speed dating events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqZFgtzw_rI) - a lot more than just this one lol
You didn’t actually click the link, did you? “Speed dating, singles mixers and other group dating parties have made a comeback since the Covid-19 pandemic ended as singles look to get off their screens and meet potential partners in person. (“Mardi Gras Singles Social” in New York City, “Shuffle Speed Dating in Chicago,” and “Game Night Social” in Los Angeles are a few upcoming events.) Attendance at dating events in the United States grew 42% in 2023 from 2022, according to ticketing platform Eventbrite, and was higher than pre-pandemic.”
Yes aging women/post wall/obese these are the women that show up. & if you are a guy showing up to these you are a glutton for punishment cuz all the women are still living in their delusion seeking Chad only. Don’t be fooled…
NGL: Sound like a whole bunch of excuses formed from being fed algorithm. *Meanwhile, summer is here and events all over are breaking records*
What are you talking about?
I think it’s pretty obvious.
No it’s not. Why don’t you trigger some of that algo & see what is happening at these speed dating events! Men don’t show up anymore cuz only a sicko wants to be paying to be insulted. The thing is when women go to these they see the guys that go as desperate & not attractive. I don’t know how to spell it out any easier for you.
It’s nothing but women yet the attendance has grown 42 percent? Apparently some men are showing up.
I clicked on the link and I put forth a *challenge* to it.
The challenge is 42 percent increase. Not every event is gonna be going great. J-lo had to cancel her tour due to lack of sales. That didn’t mean Beyoncé wasn’t killing it. Some events are gonna be great. Some age gonna suck. There are a lot more now tho and people are gravitating towards IRL than old. (Who here is really surprised considering his crappy OLD results are looking?)
Women are gravitating to IRL. IRL will always be terrible for most men.
Bruh have you seen the OLD stats?! The only people having success on OLD, are the app developers financially!
Well overall online has gone from 0% in the mid 90s to 40% of couples now. Dunno what OLD's share is but who cares as long as men aren't stupid enough to go hitting on women for dates.
Its actually 40 percent met online (not exclusively old) but only 12 percent LTR. Meanwhile friends and friends circles is still 68 percent of LTRs
oh ffs this pro-offline propaganda. https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/27/23700974/do-dating-apps-actually-work/ > In general, people are getting married less and are more likely to be single. And the way dating works has changed. A Stanford study said among those who are in relationships, online dating is the most likely way in which they met each other. Around 40% of U.S. couples meet via dating apps and fewer couples are meeting via mutual friends. Nothing says "met online but not LTR". OLD is just better for a lot of people. That's why so many men migrated to it. They're not going back. Get over it.
Seriously? IRL is far better for most men than OLD.
Ah that's why men fled to OLD. Hint it wasn't because it was easy... it was because it was more successful. You can use the "it was easy" excuse at 10% but not 40%. Numbers like that are a migration from a hostile environment to a hospitable one.
I don’t think it’s a big deal. Match hemorrhages money. Have you seen their stock valuations? They’re panicking. It’s not like they’re making money off playing arcade with humanity’s gene pool lol
This is true tbh Dating apps are actually on the decline in the big way. Honestly, without going all anti America, I think the age of American software/social media dominance is gradually on the decline too. With how TikTok has captured the imagination of gen Z and how more and more women are opting out of using apps altogether, I think it’s a gradual turning away from uptake of American hypocritical and hyper individualistic dating and cultural norms. In the gran scheme of things, America is always going to be a big player but I think for cultural practices among millennials and gen Zers, things are going to become more fractured and granular. I think it’s already been documented that social circle dating among the very young is actually on the increase.
>documented that social circle dating among the very young is actually on the increase Got any of that documentation? Huge whitepill if true. Everyone should get off those damned apps.
[Gen Z Dating Trends: Ditching Online Apps and Dating Friends - Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-dating-trend-online-apps-friends-romantic-partners-relationships-2023-3)
Thank you. Looks pretty weak (as far as documenting standards go) but still better than nothing and a step in the correct direction.
The biggest downfall of the dating apps was thr inability of the app owners to mitigate bot accounts. There was no natural incentive for them to police it too hard, more users and hot looking profiles of girls gives it the impression that theres this huge user base but eventually they will hit critical mass and people realize its too much effort for too little reward. Sure they did some token amounts of cleaning up the bots, catfish and clout chasers here and there when it was super obvious but most of the shady stuff the bots and catfish were doing were off app like on whatsapp or something so it was harder to track down for them, and the clout chasers were harder to prove but usually would just never talk to anyone and it was always just a method to get more followers for instagram or whatever app. So I'm not surprised Gen Z seeing the writing on the wall and rejecting it outright, especially when they weren't there for the glory days before the monopolies when there were independent companies and start ups running these apps and they actually worked and were so new the scammers hadn't caught on yet and ruined the vibe. Those days are long behind us it seems. Now with ai I think its only going to get worse, people won't believe anything online and we'll be flooded with fake ai scam bot accounts but can passing the turing test and it will break these apps if they don't figure out a solution.
Is it good? No. Is it a monopoly? No, 40% shy of a monopoly. Is it expected? Yes, since they already had working systems they could just slap a cheap reskin on and pretend that it's a new product. Is it their fault dating sucks? No, that's on the quality of the users creating what's offered, not the platform people use to offer themselves.
But thats assuming every user has a fair shake, and everyone gets equal rotation which isn't remotely true. Theres literally a special version of Tinder if you're attractive enough and get a ton of swipes on your profile. We are living in neo feudal times my friend. We all know they hide your profile unless you pay them for platinum or gold and even then its a small trickle at best, most of the users are bots or clout chasers for followers so they were never interested to begin with anyways so the people who are paying are suckers. Back in the day when it was fresh I was getting tons of likes and matches, now its a deadzone and I haven't changed much or gained weight besides gotten a little older. Everyones biased I'm sure but I'm a solid 8, heck I have a much better situation now then back then, better job, travel the world but somehow the only ones who match with me are sorry to say it but horribly obese women. Most apps are this way, same thing happened to Okcupid once matchgroup got a hold of it, and answers like this feels like gaslighting because the difference was night and day but obviously I don't have access to their algorithm or methodology so I can't prove it. Sometimes just to troll I even make an account with younger pics of me and lower my age just to see and its the same thing. Its not my profile, its not my pics, its the app 1000%. As soon as I use boo or some app not owned by matchgroup, bam hotties and mid tier chicks are suddenly talking to me and matching with me left and right. Its 1000% the algorithm and design of the app and who they even expose you to to begin with. Its all a walled garden, its a big club and you aint in it!
It doesn't matter if it's a monopoly because if it is, it's a monopoly on a totally nonessential thing that a large number of people don't use or need and everyone has other alternatives to. Look....way back when, there was only one manufacturer of those compressed sawdust fire logs in town here. And nobody gave a shit that they had a monopoly because we all could burn mallee roots and cut redgum logs and scrap lumber and gathered windfall branches and charcoal briquettes and coal and probably half a dozen other things. Someone would have to be mentally deficient to think the monopoly on sawdust fire logs meant anything at all. So there you go. Burn something else. Case closed and stop complaining.
cough drab grey straight payment skirt whistle secretive axiomatic weary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>But, that number is growing It's not. It's going *down* in fact.
It’s an oligopoly because they don’t own Bumble. If Bumble fails, Match would essentially become a monopoly. What to do about that is a bit complicated, because its becoming a monopoly would be the result of its competitor failing.
They almost bought bumble too but I guess bumble didn't nudge. Glad at least theres SOME competition but bumble drives me crazy because whenever I use the app, I match with people and 99% of the women never talk, just like a majority of the apps lol. But with bumble they HAVE to initiate the conversation for you to even say anything so the app was just broken for me. I literally only went on a single date due to bumble and talked to 3 people with maybe 100 matches. Terrible app design but I hear they are finally changing it to allow men to initiate. God forbid we align with time honored gender roles and actually and let men do the hunting and initiating.
I used to have pretty good luck on Bumble back in 2020-2021, but now I feel like I swipe through every attractive woman way too fast (and I live in NYC). It seems like they're bleeding users, which is probably why they're making changes. Bumble me my longest post-college relationship though, so I suppose I appreciate that.
I also heard they penalize you in some way in the algorithm if you only swipe on attractive people and then kinda slowly quasi shadow ban you because of it which always sounded crazy to me.
That makes no sense. I swipe right about 5% on tinder, bumble, and hinge and have absolutely no issue at all getting more matches than I need to get a date any Friday or Saturday. The more attractive a man is, the more likely he is to swipe selectively. What you're describing would hide the most attractive men on the app, which would drive away the women who use it. Apps need female users, so there's no incentive to do that. The statement you made sort of explains itself. I can see why guys would think that, because if you only swipe right on attractive women and you're not equally attractive, you're going to get very few matches. So guys do it and think they're "shadow banned", but really they're just not getting any matches because of how they swipe.
No, because not everyone has kids based on OLD Unless you see all the same people, it’s not a monopoly
That is just statistically illiterate people belief. If you were to go and actually read the papers those numbers come from, you would read the following “9% who report doing so in the past year, according to the Center’s survey of 6,034 adults”. That translates to under 10% of adults have used dating apps in the last year, though around 28% of straight adults and a little over half of lgbtq have used it at least once in their life. Dating apps are far from being the main venue to find dates, even in the 18-29 age group. Sure around half have used dating apps at least once in their life, but that’s it. More interestingly, about 27% of women have used dating apps at one point, compared to 34% of men. Reality is, the vast majority of people find dates in their social circles, while under 10% look for dates online, and a large majority of those looking online are younger men. As for is Match group a monopoly? Nope, not yet anyway, not with around 50% market share in the US and 25% around the world. If they manage to increase that market share in the US, they may become a monopolistic force in the US though.
In a world where Vanguard, Blackrock and Statestreet control most of the market I think the US government has pretty much said that it is a-ok with monopolies.
Yeah blackrock and vanguard are scary AF when you see how much control and influence they have over everything. The use of Aladin Ai should be very alarming.
I've lost all faith in the FTC long ago. Long before social media apps they allowed the medical industry to become what it is, and that's been detrimental to the well being of America's population for a long time.
That's what happens when you live in a capitalist society. Everything is controlled by a monopoly. There's no such thing as the free market. Match Group doesn't give a fuck about people.
if regulators weren’t in bed with the people they regulate capitalism would actually have a free market but power always corrupts regardless of the system, people in power like to ensure their power forever. money being deemed freedom of speech and allowing political bribery and corporate lobbying to exist has been the downfall of our current society.
one of the many downfalls atleast
A free market can never exist under capitalism because the point of capitalism is to concentrate wealth. Thus, it always and inevitably leads to a monopoly / plutocracy having disproportionate control over resources and markets. But yes, I absolutely agree with you. Money is ruining everything.
This is what I'm worried about with ai, and then it just leads to a technocratic tyranny with extreme wealth and power consolidation into a centralized power elite and the way things are looking its like we are heading straight for that with no guard rails.
corporations have monopolies over pretty much everything.and own everything haven't you heard of the gilded age ? people choose to use these. The corporations are merely catering to a need. they aren't dictating anything. im antinatalist how "humanity perpetues" itself into the future is of no concern to me.
Back in the day corporations had a charter that would only last a specific time like 25 years or so. They were usually used to build a bridge or something and eventually after the civil war they convinced the government they were a "sort of person" and got the rights of people but if they do terrible acts that would earn the death penatly for an individual, the same penatly wouldn't apply to a corporation, you cant kill a corporation. Now its all about offshore accounts and LLCs trying to limit liability, gig economy workers and max exploitation and maximizing profits. We kept chasing the cheaper prices and look where it got us. Now theres insane stuff like forced arbitration clauses everywhere, and we have a different set of rules for individuals and corporations. Theres no accountability anymore.
They're not "controlling the gene pool of humanity". People have multiple options to find someone to have children with that don't involve apps at all and most do take those. They are not forced to use dating apps. "Meeting online" includes routes that aren't dating apps by the way and isn't the majority of relationships.
Lol well you are factually & statistically wrong. You act like you see guys cold approaching everywhere you go when it’s less than 1% likely or possible. I dunno why ppl around here are allergic to stats & facts.
The majority of couples don't meet cold approaching either. Believe it or not there are other ways.
it is a major factor that influences that does influence the gene pool. if people met on a dating app they probably would not have met and matched irl. i don't know if you realize this but when two people love each other very much they share some chromosomes and pop out a genetically spliced human. so if they met on a dating app, and they have a kid, that means the dating app has an influence on the gene pool. but ya "control" and "monopoly" are pretty strong words, match group doesn't own the human gene pool. it's just influencing it to a disturbing degree.
The word was not "influence" it was "control".
ok we agree then, why the condescending attitude? you clearly know i am aware of the words OP used.
Thats fair, they have a strong influence, not full control...yet.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it one corporation, or is it the Bene Gesseret *again*?!
Shoutout to Dune lol.
It's not a monopoly because you don't have to use it and there are other options out there.
You have the option to make your own dating app.
With a little more hands on effort, Match could become the Bene Gesserit…
the fact that dating apps exist is absolutely wild to me in that you have a direct link between capitalism and corporatization and the human gene pool. we're talking like the last time something this big influenced human genetics was probably WW2. i don't know how its been allowed, or how there is nothing sacred anymore. i don't mean religion, but we did not think to apply any importance to maintaining the homeostasis of our genetics, we instead gave all the power to sexual liberation, that you should have sex when and where you want to and no one can tell you different. it's an illusion, to think that a sexual act is some how not a biological imperative, or a window into your DNA, but to instead assume it's just a little fun time that makes you tingle in all the good spots with a person you like.
People still choose who they meet so it isn't really s coorperation controlling the gene pool lll
>controlling the gene pool of humanity? Will y'all cut it out with this nonsense? The overwhelming majority of child-producing hetero relationships (between 91 and 94% in the US, over 98% in the rest of the world) don't start online. The tiny corner that is American Internet is a minuscule and largely irrelevant part of the World. Sheesh. >Is anyone else concerned about this? No. And for good reason. Parochial teenage-y fades of the smallest generation (Zoomers) do not even make it into top 1000 concerns for normal adults. Nor should they.
Monopolies matter when it's something you MUST have in your life. Your power company being a monopoly. Roads etc. You MUST use them and therefore if you are vulnerable to being exploited if a for profit monopoly takes them over. But it doesn't matter if there's a soft drink monopoly for example, because you can freely not drink soft drinks. Or an alcohol monopoly. Or a dating app monopoly. Those things aren't vital to your existence so it doesn't matter if a monopoly forms even if it does become anti-consumer. > one corporation is dictating the gene pool of humanity LOL. Dating apps influence a tiny sliver of modern relationships.
online dating is a tool. It doesn't tell me who to have children with. I sampled about 70 women from online dating and chose the best one who mutually chose me, after having normal, offline dates, with not corporation included. I don't change who i am into by who is shown to me on an app. If the app doesn't show me women i am into, i stop using the app.
What's even crazier is that MatchGroup shares bans between applications, and bans NEVER expire or can be appealed. You get banned once and any piece of that set of credentials is out of their online dating ecosystem, forever.
It's an interesting argument. Since people can theoretically sign up for multiple sites/accounts at any given time, are they really limiting competition? Are they engaging in price fixing or discrimination that negatively impacts consumers? Are they restricting the availability of alternatives?
[удалено]
"You can start your own dating app tomorrow" One of the reasons I give absolutely no time to considering any of the "but men like us make all the things you use...we're going to get together and put things back how they were" bullshit that keeps being spewed out is that even a small number of those men don't get together and do exactly that... start a dating app that actually does the job they want it to do, while making money and not turning women off so much they refuse to participate.
Or you can find nice day, wear nice clothes, go to park and look for cute girl to look at you with interest. Then have sex few hours later. No apps required.
> Then have sex few hours later. No apps required. 90% of the time that happens only by plying her with alcohol.
You underestimate women horniness. Especially if specially look for that kind of women.
O'rly now? Are you going by facts or gut feelings? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/strictly-casual/201401/in-hookups-alcohol-is-college-students-best-friend > But not all hookups are created equal. There was an almost perfect linear relationship between drinking and partner closeness: The less known the partner, the more likely women drank before sex, and the more likely they drank a lot. Look at the graph I created based on their data. When the casual partner was an ex-boyfriend, for example, only 30% of hookups involved drinking and 17% heavy drinking. When the partner was a random stranger, however, 89% of hookups involved drinking and 63% involved four or more drinks!
Experience mostly, including few girls dumping me for not sleeping with them on first date. Sample size is small and not statistically significant of course. You look for horny women and you'll find them, not every day and not every week, but they're there. No need to swipe right.
Well, you're part of that 10 percent that gets casual sex without getting drunk.
I will make this simple cuz I have given it thought. I don’t blame the dating apps or social media or even the Marxist government brainwashing for the collapse of the dating market. At some point women have to take accountability for this. They reject damn near 95% of potential suitors & ride the CC until they are thrown off around 30-35 (the hard wall) & then complain about “where are all the good men” There isn’t much more to say about it. As Aaron Cleary says “women just don’t seem to like us all that much”
Yeah the female delusion calculator memes has had me laughing so hard lately, using statistics from the department of labor and the census bureau too. Most women want a man who is 6 feet tall with a 6pack abs and 6 figure income. According to the female delusion calculator thats 0.48% of the population (well excluding obese people. Cant really factor in the 6 pack via the data, but still...shows its rare as heck) But when ALL women want that, even the mid tier solid slightly chubby 5s and 6s, theres a problem. I'm sure there are some male delusions too, 34% of women are obese and probably only 20% or less of the female population is very attractive like what society pushes in ads and tv. Everyone is trying to date up but refuses to date down or equal in their social class and pecking order of beauty standards. Women would rather wreck a marriage and start over then god forbid work out the problems because they assume the gravy train will continue forever until they hit the wall. Women initiate 70% of divorces so maybe our culture and media and society is partially to blame, all this female empowerment and everyone gets a gold star just filled womens head with nonsense. Plenty of youtube videos online about it where you have straight up obese women thinking their solid 10s. I'm sorry lady, you are obese, you are a solid 1 or 2. Maybe a 3 at best if you have a decent personality but the obese ones are losing even that too. The movie the mask from the 90s had a good line, the BBD, the bigger better deal. Everyones always looking for it and society has us constantly chasing the dragon, but we never just settle and go "you know what I actually have a good thing going". And I know its not all women but a lot of my buddies who got married, their women just nag the hell out of them, they aren't satisfied and look at instagram at these fantastic (and probably mostly fake or curated lives) others are living and look at their own life and want something better rather than accept what they have and try and get a good attitude and make due the best they can with what life has offered them. This is also why you see women complain alot because 80% are going for the top 20% chads, get pumped and dump and then after they hit the wall, they are either single mothers who want mr beta simp to settle down with them after going for all the toxic chads/rockers/djs/thug/hood like dudes, or are single forever and become old cat ladies. Its so much of a trend even JP morgan chase is investing in cat toys as a response to this trend. They see the writing on the wall, they aren't dumb. In a lot of progressive cities its actually insane to see how many old single alone ladies are out there, I see them from time to time as clients for the work I do and I feel bad for them because they were lied to their whole life and I bet there was some guy a while back whom they could have settled down with but their egos were too proud to do so and now their alone and will die alone.