General News

Have you ever swiped right on a Tinder match only to discover her profile isn’t real? Since the famous dating app partnered with mobile identity company TeleSign, it claims spam is down as much as 90%.

Spam has been a growing problem for Tinder– prostitutes masquerading as potential love matches eager to sell their services, hackers using the dating app to obtain valuable user information, and even companies like The Gap aiming to capitalize on the 18-25 market with clever marketing campaigns. (Last month they set up their campaign ads as Tinder user profiles without explicit permission from the company – and were asked to take them down.) Also, there was the incident of a hacker tinkering with their API to match straight men with other straight men, which ended up confusing and embarrassing a lot of users.

Even though Tinder verifies people through their Facebook accounts, many people have become adept at creating fake social media accounts, too. So Tinder’s new deal with Telesign seems to be alleviating the problem.

Telesign works by analyzing massive amounts of real-time and historical data on phone numbers, including associated contact information, phone types, geographies, and carriers. Their technology uses PhoneID verification to determine how potentially risky a phone number is, and whether the number really belongs to the person creating the account. If the score is high (meaning high risk), the user is blocked. Telesign also recommended that Tinder implement rate limits. This means that Tinder can set a limit for the number of accounts created using the same phone number. The companies did not say whether the analyzed information from Tinder users is kept private, or how it could be used by TeleSign or Tinder.

Ryan Ogle, Tinder’s CTO said in a statement: “Once we had TeleSign in place, we were able to block fraudulent accounts in a much more sophisticated way. It’s been 100 percent accurate and we’ve seen about a 90 percent reduction in spam traffic as a result, from day one.”

Tinder has taken other steps to cut back on spammers, including limiting the amount of swipes people can do in a 24-hour period with the free service. If they want to swipe indefinitely (as spam bots often do), they will have to pay for Tinder Plus.

This is another big step for the company, which seems to be making significant changes in recent months. IAC, the parent company of Tinder, has brought in a new CEO, and in March, Tinder rolled out its first paid service, Tinder Plus.

Check out our review of Tinder for more information on this popular dating app.

Real talk about Tinder: it can be a frustrating, maybe even scary, place to be a woman sometimes.

In fact, any online dating site fits that description. The entire Internet fits that description. Give people an anonymous username to hind behind, and suddenly all their worst behavior is on full display. I'm not saying it's everyone, but it's enough people to make it a serious problem.

Normally serious problems require serious solutions, but a California-based programmer decided to take a more humorous approach.

According to The Verge, the unnamed programmer tweaked Tinder's API, turning it into “a catfish machine that fools men into thinking they’re talking to women – when in fact they’re talking with each other.” He began by creating bait profiles, one using the image of a popular vlogger and the other using the image of a friend who gave her consent.

He then developed a program to identify men who indicate interest in one of the bait profiles. Once it finds two, the program matches them to each other and lets them begin the awkward, hilarious process of striking up a conversation. Within minutes of activation, the program was hard at work.

The programmer – who The Verge calls “Patrick” – estimates he witnessed 40 conversations within the first 12 hours. He developed a code to scramble phone numbers and stepped in if a real world meeting was in the cards, but says he feels torn about the ethics of his prank.

"They ignore all the signs, they ignore all the weird things," he told The Verge. "When someone is so quick to meet up without any detail or know anything about the person at all — maybe it’s deserved."

Patrick's prank was inspired by his female friends who often complained about their interactions on Tinder. His first plan was to build a Twitter bot that tweeted every first message received by a female friend, but after looking into Tinder's API, he discovered it had few protections and his vision grew.

"Tinder makes it surprisingly easy to bot their system,” he says. “As long as you have a Facebook authentication token, you can behave as a robot as if you were a person."

Patrick is far from the first to reveal the weakness of Tinder's API, but he's certainly the funniest and most socially relevant. Other hacks can be and have been used for morally ambiguous, or even dangerous, purposes. This one is good for a few laughs and makes a valid, important point about the way we treat each other online.

To read some of the priceless exchanges, check out the original post on The Verge. Check out our review of Tinder for more about the dating app.

Dating website Plenty of Fish (POF) has been making headlines recently for its longevity and user milestones, as well as its recent disclosure of financial information about the company. But thanks to the new anti-spam law in Canada, POF now has an unwanted headline that they have to deal with - the popular dating website has been ordered to pay $48,000 in fines for its email practices.

Canadians complained of Plenty of Fish’s marketing tactics, which launched an investigation by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Competition Bureau into the company’s practices. Specifically, the agencies examined how the company handles commercial emails to subscribers.

According to the disgruntled users, POF sent them commercial messages without a noticeable “opt out” or “unsubscribe” feature. One of the key requirements in the law is that each commercial email contain an unsubscribe mechanism to allow recipients to opt-out at any time. Also, according to the wording of the law, the unsubscribe feature has to be prominently displayed and “readily performed.”

Plenty of Fish agreed to paying a $48,000 penalty and developing a new compliance program to address its problematic email practices. The compliance program will include training and education for staff, as well as corporate policies and procedures regarding email marketing.

The new anti-spam law has been in effect since last year, but the Canadian agencies have had their challenges in enforcing it because of how vast and pervasive the problem of spamming seems to be. Millions of spam emails are sent every day by spammers from all over the world. Experts argued that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Competition Bureau were not equipped to handle such a pervasive issue.

The agencies however, are proving the critics wrong. The Competition Bureau recently alleged that rental car companies Budget and Avis engaged in false and misleading advertising when they failed to disclose numerous additional fees as part of their car rental promotions, including their email promotions. The Bureau is seeking $30 million in fines and reimbursement to customers. And the CRTC discovered that Compu-Finder, a Quebec-based corporate training company, sent commercial emails without consent and like POF, without proper unsubscribe mechanisms. The company was hit with a $1.1 million penalty.

CRTC notes in a press release that POF did not argue with the fine or the accusation, and hopes that by example, other companies will be inspired to change their own email spamming tactics. As for POF, the company continues to grow its subscriber base despite its setbacks, recently announcing its user base has grown to 100 million worldwide.

For most people, Tinder is, at best, a chance to find a date and, at worst, an amusing diversion when standing in line or when there's nothing good on Netflix. But for artist and hacker Matthew Rothenberg, Tinder is an opportunity for an art project.

The project is called Swipe Left, and in it he inserts imagery of drone strikes and drone strike victims into the dating app. “For most of my career I've explored how real people and communities interact with technology,” Rothenberg writes on his website, “and all the messy things that happen when they do.”

That's exactly what this project does, although “messy” is a strong understatement. Rothenberg drew a complex connection between Tinder use and drone strikes. “The interface of Tinder is consciously reductionist,” he writes on Medium. “You get a name, age, and (sometimes) a very brief bio. The decision tree is binary: yes or no (or in Tinder UI, swipe right or left). No winks, nudges, or ratings. No bookmarking to come back later for decision. You have to make a decision in order to move on.”

Every decision made on Tinder is final. Accidentally swipe left on the love of your life, and they're gone for good. But, Tinder reminds you, there's a new potential love waiting just on the other side of that swipe. They're available immediately. There's no time for regret, remorse, reflection – the cycle continues instantly, and users are left feeling fine about the fact that they just reduced an incredibly complex thing – love – to a painfully simple activity.

And then there's drone strikes. Part of the reason they are so controversial is “the sense of dehumanized technology,” Rothenberg says. The kill list looks remarkably similar to something else: a list of members who meet a series of criteria, a photo, their age, a brief bio. In the end it's a simple binary decision. Yes or no. Swipe right or swipe left.

In both cases, the computer mediated user interface provides a distancing barrier between the viewer and an action. The barrier creates a sense of separation and encourages quick action. So what happens when New Yorkers find “drone strikes images interspersed with their continuous yes-and-no swiping to Tinder matches of shirtless-ab-photos and Instagram-filtered-art-selfies taken in the MoMA rain room?”

Well, the “what” isn't actually important, according to Rothenberg. He is uninterested in which way people swipe, merely the fact that they have to swipe. “How viewers choose to react is far less interesting to me than the fact that they’ve been forced into this situation to begin with,” he says. Any reaction at all is a valid and interesting data point for the Swipe Left project.

Online dating services like eHarmony and Match have long touted the science behind their matching process, claiming that specially designed algorithms hold the secret to lasting love. But how accurate is this claim? That is, are people who join online dating sites finding long-term relationships easier to come by?

Not according to a recent study by a group of researchers from five different universities in the Midwest, South, East Cost, and West Coast. The authors found that online dating sites offer a different experience and more opportunities compared to conventional dating, but the success of these sites is not clear – namely, the matching algorithms haven’t proven their anticipated success.

“There is one fundamental problem with all of these algorithms,” Eli Finkel, a psychologist at Northwestern University who was one of the researchers for the study, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “They have set themselves up with an impossible task: They assume that they can take information from two people who are totally unaware of each other’s existence and determine whether they are compatible. That is completely false.”

According to the study, the algorithms are misleading, because research has found both similarity and “complementarity” – the basic tenants of online match-making – have little impact on relationship quality overall. Not to mention, people are confused about what they actually want. For instance, in some studies of speed dating, the participants’ ideas of the perfect match often don’t align with who they end up being attracted to in person.

This conflicts with a 2013 study from researchers at the University of Chicago, who found that online couples have happier, longer marriages - assumingly because of the matching process.

Online dating has been around for over two decades, but until recently (thanks to the soaring popularity of apps like Tinder) – was not something the majority of singles pursued. Now, the tables have turned. According to Match, 40 million Americans have used an online dating service. On top of that, a study in 2013 (funded by eHarmony) showed that almost a third of marriages were made through online dating. So why are researchers poking holes in the science now?

“He is debunking a problem no one believes exists,” OkCupid coFounder Christian Rudder told The San Francisco Chronicle. “We’re there to get you that first date. We do use math and we do get people dates.”

Real connection however, according to Finkel, happens with face-to-face interactions, or virtual ones, through Skype of Facetime – which aren’t part of the online matching process. Tinder for instance, doesn’t claim to make good matches, but it does the job of getting people more dates.

The study was conducted by Eli J. Finkel (Northwestern University), Paul W. Eastwick (Texas A & M University), Benjamin R. Karney (UCLA), Harry T. Reis (University of Rochester), and Susan Sprecher (Illinois State University).

To help promote the global launch of Tinder Plus, co-founder and soon-to-be former CEO Sean Rad has been in the news a lot lately. Recently, he hopped on Reddit to answer questions from the general public about Tinder, the launch of its new premium service, and what’s next for the company.

Because of the recent backlash about Tinder Plus, people were interested in the reasons behind the pricing of the new service - $9.99 for those under 30, and for those 30 and older, $19.99. According to Rad, “months of testing and thought went into the feature and price mix for Tinder Plus. We tested a broad range of prices and found that users that saw value in Tinder Plus were more than willing to pay at the existing price points.” He goes on to talk about Passport and Rewind, the two most-requested features offered in the new service, which allow you to check out people in other cities and also to reconsider someone you rejected before.

Rad also fielded questions on whether the app creates feelings of rejection – after all, you can be rejected with one swipe in less than a second on Tinder. Rad countered this question by explaining how Tinder works. People won’t know that you liked them unless they swipe right on your profile. “We call this the ‘double opt-in.’ Even if you don’t match with another user, there’s no certainty that they saw your profile.”

Tinder’s history holds a series of lucky accidents – for one, it was almost named Matchbox. The first version of the app didn’t even have swiping, Tinder’s signature feature. Co-Founder Jonathan Badeen explains: “I snuck it in a few weeks later and told everybody after it was released that they could swipe. The swipe was born out of a desire to mimic real life interactions with a card stack. When organizing cards you put them into piles. Swiping right fittingly throws the card in the direction of the matches…The swipe just made sense in this case and seems stupid simple in retrospect.”

One of the participants asked how the founders came up with the idea of Tinder, to which Rad replied: “…we had this obsession with breaking down the barriers in meeting people around you. We noticed that people grew closer to their small groups of friends but grew farther apart from the rest of the world in the process. We knew that if we could simply take the fear out of meeting someone, that we could bring the people closer together. And we've done just that.”

Please read our Tinder review for more information on this popular dating app.