Facebook uses its ad policies to block apps that compete with its dating service
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
So, Facebook is opposed to sex between consenting adults? For some reason, that doesn't surprise me at all.
The headline is blatantly misleading, probably purposefully so, which is sad and should make us wonder about the integrity of such organizations as well.
A better counter example would be 'Grindr' which is really de-facto focused on hookups, but they do a lot to avoid that in their presentation.
But the point stands: if you advertise a hookup app, you will not be approved by any of those orgs.
Apple just dropped one of those 'Sugar Daddy' style apps, i.e. focused on connecting younger women and older men on the basis of their 'wealthy appeal' though it's not a direct hookup / money for sex app either.
The other site mentioned in the article, ashley madison, is literally just a scam (https://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-m...), so I have no problem with it being banned.
As for the app, I agree, it doesn't seem to be poignantly focused on 'casual sex' rather, it's directly focused on 'open relationships' - which is definitely different, but an often overlapping category.
For a regular corporate policy, it's basically 'right on the line', but it's definitely within the rights of Facebook or any company with a very large audience to not have this included.
Facebook has a global audience, and the vast majority of people in the world are not going to go for something like this, and probably a plurality of people within the Western World.
FYI the app Apple dumped was 'Seeking' (Sugar Daddy) and I'm not aware if it's a scam or not, but it surely lies within the same category of 'consent, but something many people would find somewhere in the range of offensive'.
If the FCC or some agency were taking down their web-site, I would be up in arms, that would be a huge line crossed, but apparently this crosses FB's specific guidelines (and probably those of many others) for ads, which is very well within reason.
So, you can do almost what you like 'in the world' (i.e. the net), but on private domains, the rules are going to be more specific, welcome to reality.
I’m sorry but you can’t brush the point off that easily. The difference between a date and a hookup is BS. Hookup is just a judgmental description of a short sexual relationship.
E.g. Two people go on a ”date”. They have sex. They never see eachother again. Hookup, right?
Except maybe they both are seeking a long term relationship, but due to sexual incompatibility or random life events they don’t end up seeing each other again. Now it seems more like a failed attempt at dating, than a hookup.
Two people meet up for the purposes of a sexual encounter. They have a few drinks together, aren’t feeling it and go their separate ways without having sex. That sounds like a date. No other description fits, since they didn’t have sex.
Two people meet up for a ”hookup”. It goes well, they repeat it. Two years later they are married with a kid on the way. Was there a point where it was a hookup and then it turned into serious dating? Maybe but where?
I used Tinder, OKCupid, and Bumble for the most part and matched up with people with a variety of results. My general approach was to seek out potential long term relationships but didn't mind "having a little fun with Ms. Wrong while looking for Ms. Right" as the saying goes.
Many of these matches went nowhere as there wasn't mutual interest. A few ended up as short term things with maybe 1-3 dates and occasionally some intimate activity. One ended up as a longer term relationship that is ongoing a few years later.
None of these were specifically "hookup" apps. Two out of the three "short-term with physical intimacy" relationships were started via OKCupid (commonly seen as dating-focused) rather than Tinder (seen as hookup-focused). Yet I still had a mix of "hookups" and longer term dating.
What's misleading about it? Reading the article, the headline seems on point.
FB is banning dating apps that don't adhere to its public guidelines, which is a different thing altogether.
We can disagree with said guidelines, but they are at least objective.
The headline conflates the issue on purpose, i.e. to drive popular support for ostensible the anti-competitive action of Facebook, when really what they're objecting to is the nature of the policy that doesn't allow their dating app.
It's definitely misleading.
What specifically about FB Dating yields itself to sex work? That seemed to be the implication by the person I responded to.
Better to just let little Timmy watch another violent action movie and not worry he might see a breast.
Why, I'm shocked. Shocked and chagrined.
Do note, I'm not talking about Facebook's laudable decision to block ads for scam ICOs, which its policies against fraud have long prohibited.
[1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2020/01/facebook-...