Loneliness is not a bug, but a feature: The apps searching for love are not optimizing for "love" — The truth behind the design that never stops swiping

Loneliness is not a bug, but a feature: The apps searching for love are not optimizing for "love" — The truth behind the design that never stops swiping

As Valentine's Day approaches, the world of matching apps becomes lively. New registrations increase, profiles are updated, and swipes and messages accelerate. However, why do some people feel "even more lonely" on a day meant to celebrate love? The article does not attribute this solely to "individual compatibility" or "the challenges of modern romance." It raises the issue that the design philosophy of the apps themselves, along with the economic logic supporting them, is changing the way we navigate love.


Selling "Hope" Instead of "Love"

The article emphasizes that what apps are selling is not "love" itself, but the feeling that "you might get closer if you just pay a little more." Online dating as a business is enormous, with major players like Match Group owning multiple key apps and reporting significant quarterly revenues. Despite this, there are changes such as a decline in paying users, leading to a trend of aiming for growth with new features that appeal to younger users, including AI utilization.


What's important is that the ideal user behavior for the platform is not "finding a wonderful partner and unsubscribing." The ideal is for users to return, keep watching, continue comparing, and occasionally pay. The structure where the goal is not the success of a romantic relationship but rather retention and circulation is ingrained in the details of the product.


Why Swiping Never Ends—Monetizing "Uncertainty"

The article explains that "the longer uncertainty lasts, the more profitable it becomes." By continually stimulating the expectation that there might be a better match next, users are less likely to leave. This is achieved through gamified choices, systems where rewards come intermittently (like variable rewards in slot machines), notifications to draw users back, and fear of missing out (FOMO). This way, the difficulty of quitting is designed, usage time and data accumulate, and it leads to ads, subscriptions, and paid features.


The app interface is gentle. However, the gentleness is directed not towards "advancing love" but towards "continuing operation." Scrolling and swiping are light, decisions are quick, and the next option appears immediately. The less room there is for contemplation, the smoother the consumption becomes.


The Psychology of Being Unable to Choose a "Satisfactory Partner"

Humans inherently have limits in decision-making. Since time, information, and mental resources are finite, people tend to adopt a strategy of "satisficing" or deciding when something is good enough. In romance, "good compatibility" or "feeling at ease together" used to be sufficient criteria.


However, apps make choices feel "infinite." In a market that appears infinite, satisfaction is difficult. The expectation that "there must be someone better" grows, and the reason to commit to the person in front of you becomes weaker. As a result, indecision, fatigue, doubt, and boredom cycle.


What Happens When Romance Becomes "Shopping"

The article argues that apps construct encounters as a "market" and treat actions as "transactions." As choosers, we inadvertently adopt a "consumer's eye." We compare candidates, filter by conditions, pursue the optimal solution, and discard if they don't match. What tends to be reinforced are superficial signals like photos and titles.


Furthermore, the article indicates that the evaluation system easily reproduces existing hierarchies (class, race, religion, etc.). Popularity begets popularity, exposure skews towards noticeable people, and others are buried. Although it's supposed to be about love, the atmosphere of winning and losing becomes pronounced.


The Provocation That "Loneliness Is Not a Bug, but a Feature"

The article's conclusion is strong. When romantic connections are reduced to commodities, social bonds weaken, and individual "achievements" are emphasized. Apps prioritize "your preferences" and "individual strategies," making it difficult to address the structural causes of loneliness. This leads to burnout and cynicism, increasing the sense of loneliness—suggesting that "loneliness is a function, not a flaw."


Of course, not all encounters are bad. Some people do find partners. However, the moment a product is optimized for "continued use" rather than "the establishment of love," the gap between user happiness and corporate profit emerges. The core issue is that this gap affects individual mental health and perceptions of humanity.


Reactions on Social Media (Organizing Common Points of Discussion)

When this article is shared, the following reactions tend to surface on social media.

  • "I Get It, It's an Endless Design" Group
    Voices agreeing with the "endless swipe" based on personal experience, such as "being drawn back by notifications" and "suddenly encountering fewer matches after some progress, leading to a push for payment."

  • "Users Are Also to Blame" Counterargument Group
    Opinions from a self-responsibility perspective, saying "too selective," "raising ideals too high," and "don't blame the app." The very "pressure to self-optimize" pointed out in the article is ironically reflected in this counterargument.

  • "Propose Algorithm Transparency and Regulation" Group
    Voices demanding transparency in display logic, exposure differences due to payments, and data usage. They are drawn to the point that platforms are "resource allocators (holding access and distribution)."

  • "Tired, So Returning Offline" Group
    Movements discussing redesigning ways to meet people, such as "introductions are faster" and "hobby communities are more human."

  • "Still Saved by It" Practical Group
    Counterarguments that apps supplement real-world constraints, such as "few opportunities to meet in rural areas" and "no time due to busyness." They tend to conclude by seeking a "balance in design" without denying the article's problem-raising.


The interesting thing about social media is that the same experiences can diverge into "it was convenient" and "I was exploited." Probably, more than the difference in experiences, the "placement of expectations" and "distance from the app" are the branching points.

So, What Should We Do?

The article is mainly a critique, but there are practical hints that remain after reading.

  • Cut "Infinity": Decide on Number, Time, and Purpose in Advance
    Today's swipes are limited to how many minutes, interactions to how many people, and meetings to how many times a month. If left infinite, it's easy to be swallowed by the design.

  • Abandon "Optimization" and Make It an Editorial Policy
    Instead of searching for the perfect partner, return to the editorial standard of "whether the time spent together increases." Affirm satisficing as "human decision-making" rather than "compromise."

  • Limit Apps to the Entrance of Encounters and Move Relationship Building Elsewhere
    Move conversations outside the app early to distance from the comparison market. The longer you stay in the market, the more you lean towards an evaluative perspective.


Ultimately, love is not something to be "optimized" by a product. Optimization only works for the number of operations and time spent. Therefore, to protect love, it's necessary to design your own "stopping point"—this article presents such a paradox.


Source URL

Related Articles