Hacker News Reader

Comment by motohagiography | Hacker News Reader

This article sold me in switching to iPhone. It's like everything about Facebook dating seems like a eugenic program to favour people with a naive and submissive tendency toward power and authorities.

As a technology change, online dating has become a "radical monopoly (Illich)," in the sense that whether you use it or not, you are subject to it, the way a cyclist is subject to the car, and any algorithmic bias or site policy is in effect a eugenics program. Of course nobody criticizes something when they are winning, and an ostensible losers view of dating is the very popular definition of disgusting, but for a ubiquitous global company whose business model reduces to selling ads on addictive pocket slot machines to become a dominant player in the genetic selection game should give people at least some pause.

View on HN

I just switched two months ago. Been an Android users since 3.x days.

I switched mostly for privacy reasons as as well. The original idea of why I liked Android: open source / Linux based, I developed apps for it, are not as important as giving too much control and my data to Google at this point.

Been pretty happy with it as a new user. At first it was hard getting used to not having a back button where I expected it but after a few days got used to it.

I like that there is an Apple store I can go to.

The interface is slick and nice, however, I'd have have to say in recent years Android mostly caught up in that regard.

But most of all, I like that Apple's primary business is not selling my info so I am happy to pay a premium to have a bit more privacy.

> having a back button where I expected it but after a few days got used to it.

Dont forget that iOS has an almost universal left swipe gesture that doesn't require acknowledging the top left-back chevron

It also has an optional swipe down gesture at the very bottom of the screen to cut the screen size in half, useful for hitting the back button if you have to

> It also has an optional swipe down gesture at the very bottom of the screen to cut the screen size in half, useful for hitting the back button if you have to

Double-tap the home button for Reachability on iPhone 8 and older.

I didn't know that. Thank you! It makes it even easier.

> The interface is slick and nice, however, I'd have have to say in recent years Android mostly caught up in that regard.

How would you say are the apps in this regard? Are ios apps more standardized than android's?

Yes and there seems to be more developer time invested in iOS apps than Android apps for smoothness—developers know they make more money from their iOS users even taking into account how many more Android devices there are.

You might miss not being able to set third-party apps as default for certain actions, but I think this is a valid trade-off for maintaining standards and share extensions are almost as good.

There’s an app called Opener that lets you open third party apps in the relevant pages quickly. Not as fluid as Android but still quick. Personally I’ve been very happy with iOS since the switch a year ago. I’d like to point out that the biggest charm of the gestures is that it’s essentially system wide, including third party apps. Swipe to go back and tap to scroll up are just too convenient and natural for me to go back.

Definitely. I used Android for almost 5 years and I use iOS for 2 now.

iOS apps on average are definitely faster, smoother and well-made in terms of visual beauty.

I think they are from a few apps I have. But I also don't use that many apps to start with, others might have a better opinion there.

"It's like everything about Facebook dating seems like a eugenic program to favour people with a naive and submissive tendency toward power and authorities."

That makes a great quote!

Or future Andrew Niccol movie!

I have been an Android developer since Android 1.6 - I switched my personal phone to iPhone and no regrets, especially not after all the Google decisions (and banning of developer acounts), their data collection and changing everything in every release. They can't seem to focus on anything and there is no one single long term plan and roadmap, every Android team is doing something else.

Sorry but by your logic everything is a eugenics programme. My train being late causing me to not meet my future partner in another timeline fits your definition of technology and policy and algorithms, but that's sure as hell not a eugenics programme. Pretty much anything that causes me to meet or not to meet somebody is also not a eugenics programme.

And using Facebook does not mean you're submissive to a higher authority. Most people use it because there's no choice if you want your circle of friends to survive long term.

No need to apologize. Given this tech is precisely intended as a tool for people to meet each other, and the service value add is the filtering of options based on data they have collected by surveillance, that would distinguish it from say, a train.

If that's the line you're drawing, then I can understand where you're coming from more, but anything opt-in still doesn't seem to qualify as eugenics.

There was dating services in meatspace long before OKC, Tinder and now FB. Much of the same data given to them was similar to what Facebook has. Do those services class as eugenics?

A more concrete analogy would be if you donated to an egg or sperm bank, and found out later that the hospital had destroyed samples after checking the donors linkedin profiles for employment gaps.

If you would really like to turn my innocent quip into an something more inflamatory, I'd say a lack of informed consent by users about the use of their data, obtained by surveillance, used to impose opportunity costs on their reproductive prospects, structured around the commercial and political agenda of a company who makes addictive products - would be a pretty awful thing to countenance indeed.

I'm sure the lawyers and bioethicists have got it all sorted out.

Matching people based on their survieled unintentional preferences instead of their stated intentional ones seems helpful, except I'd propose that the combination of opacity and power difference ethically deprives the subjects of their intent.

They may have volunteered for the opportunity, but they have not volunteered to be chosen for. The selection bias inherent in secret data is the expression of the intent of the administrator, not the intent of the subjects.

Taking this beyond a quip wades much deeper into thorny ethical issues than is really useful on HN, but I hope this has emphasized the value of letting sleeping dogs lie.

I do appreciate you taking the time to expand upon your point.

> a eugenic program to favour people with a naive and submissive tendency toward power and authorities

Sounds like domestication.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com