Because the privately owned dating apps measure their success in profits, which gives them a misaligned incentive to ensure people don't meet anyone. Its not crazy to say a nonprofit dating app wouldn't face the same problem.
Privately owned dating apps have an incentive to keep you on the app, ie to not find you a relationship.
I'd support a non-profit dating app in a heartbeat.
There are so many dark patterns in for-profit dating apps, it's the app equivalent of a funhouse mirror.
For one, something like 75-90% of the profiles are dormant/inactive, but they're still shown as active profiles to give current users the illusion that there are lots of options in your area. Second, a successful dating app experience (assuming they're looking for something serious), means the user churns, so the app company is financially incentivized NOT to put you in front of people that you would likely connect with, at least without trying to extract as much money from you at first. Finally, the paid accounts have gotten ridiculously expensive, which drives real users away from the platform. And of course, they don't have to be transparent about any of it.
A non-profit app has much less incentive to (frankly steal) from their users because they're able to offer the service at a lower cost, without the need for the funhouse mirror BS, and could even provide meaningful aggregate community data on how many couples they've connected, etc.
Their goal is to show you what you find attractive not who is compatible with you
They also hide the people you find most attractive behind a paywall
People have different motivations. Some people, particularly women, do it for entertainment and just enjoy validations. Men who are unusually attractive or high status get an endless stream of playmates or victims
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/stephen-matthews-sente...
Other people really want a relationship and keep spending money and get nothing.
>Some people, particularly women, do it for entertainment and just enjoy validations.
You could have an exponential backoff, if someone gets a lot of potential matches, but doesn't move forward with them, they're downranked in search results. Honestly I could see that being beneficial to both parties because plenty of women talk about being overwhelmed and swamped on the apps. Men get shown women who are serious, women get a sane number of matches they can actually deal with, and those playing games don't get the validation they're looking for.
If they honestly wanted to help people get together there are a lot of things you could do in terms of mechanism design, but as it is they get paid through monthly subscriptions as opposed to when people pair up so they have the wrong incentives. It doesn’t help that almost all of them, except for Bumble, are owned by the same company, Match Group. There ought to be an antitrust lawsuit!
There is a fundamental problem though that the perception that you have unlimited choice can lead you to never settling down because you always imagine that if you keep looking you’ll find somebody better. Falling in love requires you, for at least a while, believe that that person is absolutely singular and unlike everybody else as Stendhal writes in the classic On Love a.k.a. “Love the one you’re with”
See https://www.amazon.com/Why-Love-Hurts-Sociological-Explanati...
If I was really going to “do something about it” I’d try to put couples through a structured experience, see
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/14/love-is...