You know, there's probably fewer perverse incentives with a government run dating service. Obviously I can imagine ways it could suck, but when I compare them to how commercial dating services are run it's hard to see how they could do a _worse_ job.
If people are oriented towards traditional relationships, then pairing people up younger probably leads to higher overall fertility rate in the population, so I could see governments with existentially declining fertility rates (read: almost all of them) taking an interest in actually providing a successful service here (unlike the commercial dating apps).
Of course, a lack of a match is not the only thing that prevents people from having kids, but I'm curious what the impact of an optimal matching service would be on fertility rates.
edit: I think governments might do well to provide funding for dating apps (whether privately or publicly owned) based on how many matches from the app actually lead to children. Completely flip the classical incentives on their head. Should be easy enough to ask if newborns were a product of a participating app as part of the birth certification process.
Every platform. Just being authenticated by government ID doesn’t change the issue. You still have fraud and inauthentic behavior.
India is a billion plus people. Google says that the dating app user base is 100mn, which is much lower than the total number of people who would use a government match making app.
That’s why the question regarding scale. That assumption makes a 10 person firm for a nation viable or impossible.
Singapore's population is 6 million, about 1.7 million are aged between 16 and 40.
That's 1000 times smaller than your "few billion" scale, before you remove those already in partnerships or those who don't want to.
> You could make an app for a whole country with a company of less than 10 people.
Perhaps you could do it for Singapore, I’d love to know how those 10 people would be split across functions, and how they would handle the fraud and safety issues that crop up.
In practice it would be 10 managers and in-between contractor types siphoning all allotted money and then an unexperienced dev building a terrible overburdened service that noone wants to use.
depends on the country. this type of corruption is guaranteed in some countries, less so in others. Singapore is usually good at avoiding it. Their online services are very good.
the government can switch up the incentives and for example make payment contingent on people actually using the platform as well as opening the tender to startup teams (usually they are locked out).
Sure it's easier to keep eyes on in a tiny country like Singapore, but basically all major western countries struggle with stuff like this because politics is way too spread out and ingrained with too many local interests. Strong federalism is the cradle of corruption, but if you can walk across your country in a day there's simply not enough room to federalize. OTOH federalism is necessary if your seat of government is 500 miles away, because there is no way for them to effectively govern local issues anymore.
The UK had some success with GDS. Not all IT in bigger countries is failures.
I honestly think that labeling corruption as corruption and a popular sentiment towards slamming a few people in jail for it would go a long way towards fixing these problems.
Instead even among the general public the sentiment is "government is just incompetent" which helps soften the reaction to it and thus indirectly encourages it to get worse.
There's no shortage of countries around the world that have dug themselves a corruption hole they struggle to get out of. It's easier to fix it starting from here than there but we don't want to end up there.
Things similar to GDS exist in many wealthy countries by now. And quite a few of them do work more or less. But it you ever get to work with the government on something like this or even just get a peek behind the scenes at how critical software decisions are made, you would share the same opinion.
my previous comment was about my peek behind the scenes.
the worst software decisions were primarily about corruption, even when they looked like they were about competence.
ime the private sector isnt any more competent on average it's just that most companies' IT budgets can't be milked endlessly with the right connection. even there there are exceptions though.
water-data-dude · · focus · HN ↗
pcthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
Of course, a lack of a match is not the only thing that prevents people from having kids, but I'm curious what the impact of an optimal matching service would be on fertility rates.
edit: I think governments might do well to provide funding for dating apps (whether privately or publicly owned) based on how many matches from the app actually lead to children. Completely flip the classical incentives on their head. Should be easy enough to ask if newborns were a product of a participating app as part of the birth certification process.
phreeza · · focus · HN ↗
ant6n · · focus · HN ↗
zurfer · · focus · HN ↗
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
intended · · focus · HN ↗
What size of population are you considering for this hypothetical nation?
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
And which nations are scaled to a few billion people?
And they all date? Every single one of them? The married couples? The children and the elderly?
intended · · focus · HN ↗
India is a billion plus people. Google says that the dating app user base is 100mn, which is much lower than the total number of people who would use a government match making app.
That’s why the question regarding scale. That assumption makes a 10 person firm for a nation viable or impossible.
hypfer · · focus · HN ↗
intended · · focus · HN ↗
iso1631 · · focus · HN ↗
That's 1000 times smaller than your "few billion" scale, before you remove those already in partnerships or those who don't want to.
intended · · focus · HN ↗
> You could make an app for a whole country with a company of less than 10 people.
Perhaps you could do it for Singapore, I’d love to know how those 10 people would be split across functions, and how they would handle the fraud and safety issues that crop up.
sigmoid10 · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
the government can switch up the incentives and for example make payment contingent on people actually using the platform as well as opening the tender to startup teams (usually they are locked out).
sigmoid10 · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
I honestly think that labeling corruption as corruption and a popular sentiment towards slamming a few people in jail for it would go a long way towards fixing these problems.
Instead even among the general public the sentiment is "government is just incompetent" which helps soften the reaction to it and thus indirectly encourages it to get worse.
There's no shortage of countries around the world that have dug themselves a corruption hole they struggle to get out of. It's easier to fix it starting from here than there but we don't want to end up there.
sigmoid10 · · focus · HN ↗
pydry · · focus · HN ↗
the worst software decisions were primarily about corruption, even when they looked like they were about competence.
ime the private sector isnt any more competent on average it's just that most companies' IT budgets can't be milked endlessly with the right connection. even there there are exceptions though.
eru · · focus · HN ↗