Redacted is a private tracker, I’ve seen a bunch of SACD stuff there. You can interview to get in, they have a website to prep for the interview.

In my experience (I’m a few years out of date with how the app works now, keep that in mind) it’s like 90% looks. You CAN build up a profile, but IIRC only the first sentence of it shows up on your picture. A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile before swiping, then read your profile if they’re going to use it to judge you on.

Most of the people I know who used tinder, myself included, didn’t really do that much. We just swiped based on looks, and if someone was borderline then we looked at the profile to make a decision. But that was pretty rare, most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.

The apps is designed to encourage that behavior. When I used it profiles were REALLY not being encouraged, IDK if that has changed (I would guess it hasn’t).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We desperately need laws to regulate these kinds of privacy policies/user agreements. The VAST majority are way too long and complicated for a normal person to actually understand, let alone read. We need to limit what companies can/can’t do with them instead of letting them do whatever they want to.

We also need a law that prevents them from changing the terms of service on a product someone has been using, then locking them out of it if they don’t agree to the new terms.

The thing is this shit works for right wingers. They genuinely believe that the ADL calling someone an antisemite, or even suggesting they might be, is the same as the government kicking your door down and murdering you because you used “free speech”

Nope, not available her ein the states.

If premium cost $5per month I’d pay for it, u use YouTube all the time

No way in hell it’s worth $15 a month though, their pricing is completely brwindead

I genuinely think that advertising should be illegal at this point. It’s a ridiculous concept.

Yeah this is a definition of “theft” that doesn’t really work at all with the commonly used one.

Like, if you download a torrent, it was uploaded by someone else, willingly. If they bought a DVD and handed it to a friend, that friend wouldn’t be stealing the DVD. But now, if they upload the file to the internet for other people to watch, this class is calling that theft.

Its the kind of “theft” that leaves no victims. The alleged “victim” isn’t the person from whom the content was downloaded, no, it’s the third party who originally sold that person the product in the first place.

The whole concept isn’t logically consistent, but the corporations wrote the laws and get to decide how they are enforced and what they mean so it doesn’t matter that the law makes no sense and is punishing people for “crimes” that are, at their very core, victimless.

Corporations when some dude steals a copy of a 30 year old movie: 😡

Corporations when they steal billions from their workers salaries every year: 🤑

I’ve said it many times: I think that copyright for all published art should extend for exactly one year after it’s publication then become public domain. For almost ALL media, the first year is the time in which it make over 90% of its money. If you haven’t turned a profit, or at least broken even, by then then you aren’t going to.

After tjay I don’t see why you should be entitles to royalties from every sale, especially with our modern system of mass distribution.

Basically the only times I click on ads is when I’m searching for something and the search engine I’m using has paid ads for the thing I’m searching for at the top.

Beyond that I can’t think of any times I’ve ever clicked on an ad intentionally.

Joplin is another FOSS alternative to Obsidian. I’ve been using it for years; it let’s you encrypt your notes in place so they can’t be read without the client having the password to access them.

It also helps that they are essentially a monopoly.

I know that there are technically other game launchers, but that’s always been how monopolies work. They allow a few token “competitors” that they completely control to exist.

Other than steam the only other gamelaunchers/storefronts for pc are:

• EA (Only has EA games in it, which are mostly also on steam)

• Ubisoft (Only has Ubisoft games, also mostly all on steam)

• Epic Games (the only true competitor to steam, and everyone hates them because they aren’t steam)

• GOG (storefront only, I’m pretty sure they literally give you steam keys)

Only ONE of them is a true competitor to steam, Epic Games, and they don’t have anywhere close to the usage steam does. The others are exclusive storefronts (that also have their games sold on steam) or storefronts that sell steam keys.

Steam is so deeply ingrained into the PC gaming space that I’m not sure most gamers understand how devastating it would be to get banned from steam or to have steam go under as a company. Their terms of service in relation to your “ownership” of games are a nightmare, if you get banned from steam your entire library disappears. Poof. Gone. Unrecoverable.

If there were actual alternatives to steam andiwere able to untie my library from them then I would do so in a heartbeat, but as it is my entire games library is trapped in steam and there isn’t really anyway to retrieve it without having multiple terabytes of storage space ready to just hold all of those games at the same time.

Man his divorce really fucked him up didn’t it?