The app doesn’t need to be free, and the revenue stream won’t dry up if it actually works because people break up, and there are so many fucking people that even in a zero sum scenario it would take forever to reach saturation.
Sorry if I come off like a butthole but I’m both curious yet dubious of the idea. I feel like people probably have thought about it but they probably ran into the same problems you’ll run into.
You didn’t quite answer my question. Where are you getting revenue? Eg. Subscription, one-time fees for X, grants, investments, etc?
Duallingo started like a non-profit but even their revenue with its massive userbase couldn’t cover their expenses so they had to compromise hard to keep the lights on. The same happened to Coffee Meets Bagel. Hinge started with the same premise of “this app is meant to be deleted” but they also had to compromise and eventually sold to Match Group.
Also, I feel like gay men are a unique demographic that has higher that average engagement so Grindr is probably in a uniquely advantaged position to resist enshitification.
I guess I’m just saying it’s probably in practice a cost center like city infrastructure or schools or research, so it might only work without heavy compromises if it’s also funded by taxes.
Donations and many self hosted volunteers, helped by the unique nature of the fediverse architecture also distributing burdens, fewer users, and lower computation/storage/availability requirements (compared to a more centralized service like a dating app).
That’s an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.
Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.
Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.
I feel like you haven’t provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, “This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large.”
It seems to me that you’re implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It’s one that isn’t very insightful and one that offers little utility.
Yea we can maybe try to define some of the words etc, I understand what you’re saying…
Gay couples have more sex than hetero couples who have more sex than lesbian couples
Men think about sex more, men masturbate more, men visit prostitutes more, men look at more porn,
How are we going to define horny?
I do understand that women throughout history have had their sexuality policed, and that women do in general care more about relationships and the emotional intimacy before they can fully enjoy sex, etc… but still, men are way hornier…
All of these statements are general for the group of men and women, not specific to any individual, obviously there are specific women who are more horny than specific men
I also don’t think it’s a bad thing if it is in fact true that men are hornier, it’s just part of being human… there are natural differences between men and women and that’s okay! 😊
Well the claim was your’s and I’m of the opinion that comparing who’s hornier isn’t a worthwhile endeavor.
Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.
Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.
But even non-profits need to pay for operating costs like salary and cloud fees. Where would you get the funding for that?
The app doesn’t need to be free, and the revenue stream won’t dry up if it actually works because people break up, and there are so many fucking people that even in a zero sum scenario it would take forever to reach saturation.
Sorry if I come off like a butthole but I’m both curious yet dubious of the idea. I feel like people probably have thought about it but they probably ran into the same problems you’ll run into.
You didn’t quite answer my question. Where are you getting revenue? Eg. Subscription, one-time fees for X, grants, investments, etc?
Duallingo started like a non-profit but even their revenue with its massive userbase couldn’t cover their expenses so they had to compromise hard to keep the lights on. The same happened to Coffee Meets Bagel. Hinge started with the same premise of “this app is meant to be deleted” but they also had to compromise and eventually sold to Match Group.
Also, I feel like gay men are a unique demographic that has higher that average engagement so Grindr is probably in a uniquely advantaged position to resist enshitification.
I guess I’m just saying it’s probably in practice a cost center like city infrastructure or schools or research, so it might only work without heavy compromises if it’s also funded by taxes.
Where are we getting the funds for Lemmy and its instances?
Donations and many self hosted volunteers, helped by the unique nature of the fediverse architecture also distributing burdens, fewer users, and lower computation/storage/availability requirements (compared to a more centralized service like a dating app).
It’s almost as if men are a little bit hornier than women…
That’s an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.
Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.
Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.
I mean, maybe we need to define horny, this may be a semantics issue,
But no, you’re very wrong. In general men are way more horny, but we may be looking for different things to solve the horniness issue…
Men’s sex drive is not only consistently higher than women’s, but it is more consistent over time and more consistent across individuals as well
I feel like you haven’t provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, “This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large.”
It seems to me that you’re implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It’s one that isn’t very insightful and one that offers little utility.
Yea we can maybe try to define some of the words etc, I understand what you’re saying…
Gay couples have more sex than hetero couples who have more sex than lesbian couples
Men think about sex more, men masturbate more, men visit prostitutes more, men look at more porn,
How are we going to define horny?
I do understand that women throughout history have had their sexuality policed, and that women do in general care more about relationships and the emotional intimacy before they can fully enjoy sex, etc… but still, men are way hornier…
All of these statements are general for the group of men and women, not specific to any individual, obviously there are specific women who are more horny than specific men
I also don’t think it’s a bad thing if it is in fact true that men are hornier, it’s just part of being human… there are natural differences between men and women and that’s okay! 😊
Well the claim was your’s and I’m of the opinion that comparing who’s hornier isn’t a worthwhile endeavor.
Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.
Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.