Discussion

FTC Takes Action Against Match and OkCupid for Deceiving Users by Sharing Personal Data with Third Party

verdverm: I can think of a few federal agencies that need the same treatment, Palantir too

altairprime: [delayed]

rationalist: No class action or fines for discrimination based on gender? OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.

john_strinlai: >OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.

chaps: I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a fucked up admission.

loeg: The ratio is that bad anyway.

justonceokay: If your main problem with a dating app is that men pay more than women, then you’re not going to like being in a relationship very much at all :)

Acrobatic_Road: There's so much shady and unethical behavior from these companies I'm surprised there's not more lawsuits and litigation against them.

tetromino_: Key quote:> Even though it did not have any business relationship with OkCupid, the third-party data recipient asked the company to share large datasets of OkCupid user photos and related data with it because OkCupid’s founders were financial investors in the third party. OkCupid provided the third party with access to nearly three million OkCupid user photos as well as location and other information without placing any formal or contractual restrictions on how the information could be used, the FTC alleged.I wonder what is this third party that the complaint does not list by name?

ImJamal: Just guessing, but the third party company did not break a law or go against their privacy policy.Reuters says it is "Clarifai" if you wanted to know.https://www.reuters.com/world/match-group-settles-us-ftc-cla...

hamdingers: If you exclude bots and otherwise fake accounts the ratio is much worse than 20:1.

john_strinlai: that sucks!whatever more accurate numbers you want to substitute in there is fine, the point remains the same.

hamdingers: My point is that what you're being asked to pay for is wildly misrepresented.To be more explicit: you're paying extra to give more porn bots access to your inbox.

jgalt212: > As part of a settlement, OkCupid, operated by Dallas-based Humor Rainbow, Inc., and Match Group Americas, which provides services for Humor Rainbow, will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.Because everyone else is "allowed" to misrepresent its privacy policies.

unyttigfjelltol: It’s more like “strike one,” and sets up a clear standard for what happens if this continues, as it did in another well-known case.[1][1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/facebook-agrees-pay-...

m463: makes me wonder if the person you went on a date with cherry-picked you due to your data. (anyone who would post on hacker news is obviously a good catch!)

chaps: You're funny.I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nice) dates out of it that never went anywhere.

junkaccount100: Throwaway account. I tried these sites a couple of times each in the past (the UK versions at least). I'm married now and fortunately don't have to deal with "the dating scene" and how awful it is/was.When I signed up for Match, about ten minutes into the process my account suddenly changed to that of another man including different photo, descriptions, orientation etc. I don't know why this happened but it was absolutely mortifying and an outrage Match did this. I dread to think how shit their code has to be to somehow merge accounts or whatever happened. I deleted "my" account immediately.I imagine that counts as excessive sharing of personal data.

Sohcahtoa82: I met my current wife on OKC in 2010, before online dating became an utter cesspool.I've been out of the dating scene for 16 years now, but based on what I see on social media, I think online dating sucks today for three reasons.1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions. It doesn't help that people argue over whether Tinder is a dating app or a hook-up app.2. I'm not sure how to put this without seeming misogynistic, but some women greatly over-value themselves. Or at the very least, they have out-dated ideas of courtship. Some of them expect to be taken out to $50+/plate restaurants on a first date, while many men think women are just trying to score free meals. It's hard to make relationships kick off when they begin so adversarial.3. Dating sites/apps have a financial incentive for your relationship to fail. They can give you matches they know are bad since it keeps you as a serial dater and on their app. They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.

yieldcrv: > 1. Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid.so are women, unnecessarily gendered

yieldcrv: > misogynisticthe definition requires "contempt", but it has been diluted to mean any statement that merely points out of corrosive behavioradditionally, many of the statements are actually class based and not inherently gendered, for example, we would call out a man trying to date for free meals too, but since its seen in contexts about women, its stated in reference to that gender, masquerading as contempt and misogyny, but not highlighting what is in the observer's heart and mind whatsoever.

avgDev: Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.

duped: It used to be that promoters were paid per woman they brought to the club and nothing for men, and they would in turn charge a cover per man.No idea how these businesses operate now. I'm sure there's still sliding scales of sliminess based on the quality of the club and its management.

Forgeties79: When you say “$50+/plate” are you saying the dinner itself or each dish? Either way, that is not a particularly expensive meal for an adult taking someone on a date. For the US: In 2026 you should expect $100-$200 bill with drinks basically anywhere. Going out to dinner is not cheap. $100 is actually a great deal unless we’re talking chain restaurants.If you don’t want to spend that every first date, then I would suggest not making dinner the first date. Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.

matheusmoreira: > while many men think women are just trying to score free mealsMen don't "think" this, we know. It is easy to find screenshots of women literally bragging about doing this on social media.Nobody really engages in good faith anymore.

mjr00: > Many men (Not all, but many) are there simply because they want to get laid. They're not looking for a relationship, they're looking for a hook-up, and they're not honest about their intentions.In fairness, this is not at all exclusive to online dating.

hector_vasquez: The FTC article links to the federal complaint[0] which names the third-party data recipient as Clarifai, Inc."In September 2014, the CEO of Clarifai, Inc. e-mailed one of OkCupid’s founders requesting that Humor Rainbow give Clarifai, Inc. (i.e., the Data Recipient) access to large datasets of OkCupid photos."[0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OkCupid-MatchCo...

realreality: So, your dating photos were going to a government contractor involved with AI killer drone technology.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarifai#Military_work

Sohcahtoa82: Fair question. When I think "$50/plate", I'm thinking $50 for just the dinner main course, not including drinks, appetizer, or dessert.> Do something more casual first time around. Bar, coffee/walk, whatever.The problem with that is there are women that will scoff at a man trying to do something casual like coffee, tea, or ice cream for a first date. They want to be wined and dined and treated like a princess right off the bat. They think they're a prize to be won simply by being a woman.Though I truly believe that most women are not like this. However, some are, and their attitude is probably what keeps them perpetually single.

mikebenfield: You've missed the point. The point is that the women in question demand it. There is no shortage of women on social media ranting about how lazy or cheap men are who want to do coffee or drinks for a first date. Or especially a walk. If you suggest a walk for a first date there's a strong chance you'll never hear from her again.

probably_wrong: If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.[1] https://blog.photofeeler.com/okcupid-is-wrong-about-smiling-...

stanford_labrat: > They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?

Marsymars: My reading of the comment wasn't that the problem is that people expect dinner to be $50+/plate, it's that people expect dates to be dinner, and $50+/plate.The point is really that there's an expectation mismatch around costs that shrinks everyone's pool of daters.For actual numbers in Canada, the Globe and Mail recently commissioned a survey showing about 47% of singles would not be willing to spend more than 50 CAD (36 usd) on a first date - and that 24% of singles think the man should pay, compared to 0.2% of singles thinking the woman should pay. So you can see the mismatch if you think about the Venn diagrams there.Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article-is-canada-facin...

cyanydeez: Or starting a job; wanting to advance in the office; become an entrepreneur; wanting to go into politics; wanting to go into the clergy; wanting to become president; wanting to visit islands; wanting run casinos; wanting to run beuaty pagents...Hrm...

Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting:

john_strinlai: this kind of "action"/"settlement" is too funny:>"As part of a settlement, OkCupid [...] will be prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies.">"Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match are permanently prohibited from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting: [...]"every company should already be "prohibited from misrepresenting its privacy policies" and the collection/controls stuff.14 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation, and we get "please dont do that again".

gruez: >12 years, including intentional obstruction of the ftc investigationTo be fair, the complaint only alleges one instance of data transfer, so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. It's like if your nemesis died under mysterious circumstances, a journalist asked you whether you killed him, you said no, and it turned out you did. Is it a lie? Yeah. Could it be reasonably characterized as "intentional obstruction of police investigation"? Hardly.

john_strinlai: >so it's unclear whether the privacy violations were actually occurring for 12 years.i wasnt clear in my comment, but i meant it in the sense of "12 years to resolve this one incident".>Claims that they were engaging in "intentional obstruction of the ftc investigation" are also unsupported beyond the false statements they made to the media and the users. i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.

gruez: >i am not particularly inclined to take OkCupids side here, and will default to accepting the FTCs allegation.Yeah you're right. The part about obstructing the investigation was in the press release but I was only looking at the complaint.

ryandrake: The US Government routinely treats corporations with kid gloves. When they're found to be breaking the law, the company usually says "oopsie doopsie, did we do that??" and the government in turn settles with "naughty, naughty, just don't do it again!" It's like kindergarten punishment. But if you or I break federal law, it's PMITA Prison for us.