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.
The government also wants stable couples (divorce are costly to society) and non-toxic relationship (because these too are costly), which is also what the users desire.
How do we know that divorces are more "costly" to society than people being stuck together even if they aren't happy together? Would seem like the opposite to me.
That's a different question though. It's in society's interest to ensure couples (or at the least couples who have children) are compatible enough long-term to not end up divorcing/separating.
The societal costs otherwise aren't just the obvious direct costs - there are other things like (in divorces where there are children involved) negative effects on labour force mobility.
water-data-dude · · focus · HN ↗
SwtCyber · · focus · HN ↗
brabel · · focus · HN ↗
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
tomatocracy · · focus · HN ↗
The societal costs otherwise aren't just the obvious direct costs - there are other things like (in divorces where there are children involved) negative effects on labour force mobility.