openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Open source means you can see how maliciously and constantly you are fucked over by the app.
The conversation during the first date largely consisted of the couple swapping notes on their respective code audits of the dating system. It was when Jeremy heard Sandra raise the issue that some of the site’s metrics for individual users used Sturge’s rule to bin users, but that off-site demographic data suggested that the distribution of several of these metrics were not symmetric, at that moment, that he knew that the two were meant to be.
I think it does stop that because people would know how they’re being manipulated and not participate.
I think the the fairer argument is that being open source doesn’t get people to use it, and, since people want to be where everyone else is, they’ll go to apps with marketing budgets and no requirement to learn how to federate your instance or whatever the fuck.
You asked why open source would matter. In this case it would matter because it is visible if the app is abusing an algorithm to keep you on the app rather than actually try to find a match you might like.
So for one, it’s much less likely to be happening because anybody with the know-how can see it and tell people. If an app got a bit larger of a userbase and then tried to change it to be shitty, you’ll know and can stop using it.
It’s also less likely because typically these open source apps the person is developing for free (maybe with donations to help support it) so there isn’t that incentive to do anything scummy.
Anyone else can fork the application and host it themselves, so if the original developer starts making changes you disagree with you and a few other contributors could come together and take them out (like CoMaps for an example).
Open source means you can see how maliciously and constantly you are fucked over by the app.
Honestly, I think most dating apps–owned by a single company–are probably breaking laws, and if they’re not, we need to write some more.
At least we can do an anti-trust case against Match:
Match Group, Inc.[…] owns and operates the largest global portfolio of popular online dating services including
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
The conversation during the first date largely consisted of the couple swapping notes on their respective code audits of the dating system. It was when Jeremy heard Sandra raise the issue that some of the site’s metrics for individual users used Sturge’s rule to bin users, but that off-site demographic data suggested that the distribution of several of these metrics were not symmetric, at that moment, that he knew that the two were meant to be.
but it being open source doesnt stop that. hence my question to OP.
I think it does stop that because people would know how they’re being manipulated and not participate.
I think the the fairer argument is that being open source doesn’t get people to use it, and, since people want to be where everyone else is, they’ll go to apps with marketing budgets and no requirement to learn how to federate your instance or whatever the fuck.
we are talking cross purposes. and i really dont care that much to explain.
You asked why open source would matter. In this case it would matter because it is visible if the app is abusing an algorithm to keep you on the app rather than actually try to find a match you might like.
So for one, it’s much less likely to be happening because anybody with the know-how can see it and tell people. If an app got a bit larger of a userbase and then tried to change it to be shitty, you’ll know and can stop using it.
It’s also less likely because typically these open source apps the person is developing for free (maybe with donations to help support it) so there isn’t that incentive to do anything scummy.
Anyone else can fork the application and host it themselves, so if the original developer starts making changes you disagree with you and a few other contributors could come together and take them out (like CoMaps for an example).
Everyone understands your question. You just miss the point of open source projects.
ok then.