Básicamente, las necesidades de las personas que buscan pareja en línea están más cubiertas para los hombres que para las mujeres, lo cual juega a favor de ellos. Para nosotras, es más difícil usar esas habilidades evolutivas a través de una app que para ellos.
On 2 February, at the cusp of Valentine’s Day, the Los Angeles sheriff’s department warned of the “growing criminal epidemic” of romance scams during a community meeting called Love Hurts. Romance scams are a type of online fraud, in which criminals pose as desirable partners on dating sites or email, win the hearts of their victims and end up fleecing them of their money.
Modern love is digitised. Letters and unrequited love have been replaced with modern iterations (saucy pictures and ghosting). You do not go on blind dates, you go on dates with people whose best photos you deem, at best, attractive and, at worst, passable. No one asks each other out in person any more, probably.
It’s not only Facebook treating us like lab rats. Dating sites can manipulate our emotions, too – and blame it on user testing. The possibilities are endlessly scary
If you thought the internet industry was chastened by the public firestorm after Facebook revealed it had manipulated the news feeds of its own users to affect their emotions, think again: OKCupid.com, the dating site, is now bragging that it deliberately arranged matches between people whom its algorithms determined were not compatible – just to get data on how well the site was working.
In a Monday blog post entitled – I’m not making this up – “We Experiment On Human Beings!” the site’s co-founder, Christian Rudder, essentially told us to face the facts of our modern world … at least as he sees them:
[G]uess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.
Human experimentation is definitely part of how websites work, in a way, because all online services of considerable size do something called A/B testing – seeing how users respond to tweaks, then adjusting accordingly. But that doesn’t mean sites can, do or should routinely and deliberately deceive their users or customers.
Yet Rudder – whose observations about data on his site’s “OKTrends” blog were almost always fascinating when he was posting regularly – acknowledges that OKCupid wasn’t merely A/B testing when it recently tried to figure out whether its human recommendation algorithm was actually correct:
To test this, we took pairs of bad matches (actual 30% match) and told them they were exceptionally good for each other (displaying a 90% match.)
Where I come from, we call this deception, and the Washington Post’s Brian Fung asks, reasonably, “If you’re lying to your users in an attempt to improve your service, what’s the line between A/B testing and fraud?”