People are perfectly happy to say that in all sorts of places including this very forum.
Creating a neutral dating app with proper moderation (against harassment and fake/spam accounts) and without the profit incentive would be a great entry point for that organization to study relationships in general.
Possibly, the commercial incentives of these apps have them deliberately optimizing for short-term matches. Or it may be the case that the apps are doing as best as they can manage and the problem is simply very difficult to solve. If the former is the case, then removing or regulating the commercial incentive might help.
If anything, Tinder is the precise opposite of a dating app.
Of course, this has little to do with dating apps.
As incellish as that sounds, I am 50 and I have been happily married for 13 years and before that unhappily married for four from the time I was 28-32. But my dating life mostly sucked in my 20s as a five foot 4 decently successful guy, in great shape as a part time fitness instructor, outgoing, and with a modicum of social skills.
A guy who is not financially successful and who is tall has a much better chance in the dating or at least the hookup pool than a short person who is financially successful.
Do you want to sign up for the "might get forced to be with someone who's abusive" lottery?
Realistically, if I were forced into that I would kill my husband or myself. I would rather be in jail or dead than be subjected to institutionalized human trafficking and domestic slavery. That's the difference. You're trying to draw an equivalence between a mountain and mole hill in magnitude by saying that what they have in common is that they're backed by the force of law.
So I see a lot of similarities, yet one is generally accepted, and the other... not so much. Even though most of the world is heading towards population collapse, and surely the moral obligation you speak of also applies when it comes to ensuring society survives in the first place.
"the government death squads and taxes are both taking something by force that's not consented to -- life, and percentage of your income" -- like holy hell dude.
I don't even know where to begin to bridge the experience gap of someone who thinks that government sponsored human trafficking (because that's what forced marriage is), rape, and forced impregnation is comparable to taxes.
Give me the choice between working a menial dead end job until I die or the hell you're describing for only 1 year and I'll have my resume polished before you can finish the sentence.
For the rest, your total lack of empathy ("only women can suffer"), twisting of my words ("death squads", really?), and your willingness to kill your husband (irrational, but there you go) means I won't be responding to you in the future.
I'm not saying only women can suffer, I'm saying you literally can't grasp how much of a hell the world you're imagining with forced marriage is. And of course I'd kill my husband, in your world he's my government appointed rapist whose babies I will be forced to have. What other option do I have? Right now today that would be more than enough to qualify for self defense. You apparently think this is fine and the pregnancy is "just" 9 months of your civic duty while me and every other woman will say is the furthest thing from fine possible. You're arguing that "death squads" is too hyperbolic but I'd rather take the firing squad. Men would suffer in your hell too but you don't see any of the downsides I guess.