• Paradachshund@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 month ago

    To be honest I don’t think it does need to keep the users who succeed to stay profitable. It’s just they can’t handle the numbers not growing every year. There are always new people trying to find a date, and I think a service that wasn’t greedy could make something that works for the users and the company both.

    • WolfdadCigarette@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      In this case, you’re talking about a chicken turning back into an egg. The chicken has already grown large thanks to massive venture capital loans, server costs, and the board that appeared upon its explosion guiding it toward further engorgement. Dating apps don’t, by definition, have to partake of ultracapitalism, but every single major example unequivocally does.

      • slaacaa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Most of them were acquired by match.com, to even avoid the chance of any competition. How regulators allow this monopoly should be a question for criminal court (similar to many other industries, like letting facebook purchase instagram and whatsapp many years ago)

        The chicken to egg metaphore is perfect, though they could be forced to change with strong regulation. Monopolies should be either broken up to allow true competition, or should only be allowed to operate as thightly regulated utilities (like electricity distribution networks).

          • irreticent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Rip out the old guard with the ferocity deserved of the handle on your greatest enemy’s anal beads.

            Ouch! I just imagined someone yanking out a strand of anal beads in the way they’d try to pull start a lawnmower.