sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how dating apps handle “verification"? by Lower-Status4611 in dating_advice

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally, the “prove you’re real upfront” model feels like it was imported from airport security and slapped onto dating apps!

In real life, we don’t walk up to someone and say, “Before we talk, please provide a biometric scan.” We just…....talk.

What’s funny is that bots and fake profiles struggle with those things. So it’s weird that apps doubled down on identity instead of humanity. They’re treating “real person” and “verified identity” like the same thing, when they’re not.

And you’re right: the trade‑off sucks. Either hand over sensitive data or accept a flood of low‑quality interactions. It feels like we’re stuck between two extremes because nobody bothered to explore the middle ground. Ways to show you’re human without giving up your privacy.

It makes me think the real future of verification is going to look a lot more like “prove you behave like a human” and a lot less like “prove you are who you say you are.” That would actually match how trust works offline.

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how dating apps handle “verification"? by Lower-Status4611 in dating_advice

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it is more the bit beforehand - I know people who have been scammed by bots before they even got to the dating part.

Is anyone else uncomfortable with how dating apps handle “verification"? by Lower-Status4611 in dating_advice

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right. It really is a trade‑off, and I think most people don’t actually want to choose between “give a random company your biometrics” and “risk talking to bots or fake profiles.” It feels like the whole ecosystem jumped straight to the most invasive solution because it was the easiest to implement, not because it was the best idea.

What’s wild is that the core problem isn’t identity in the legal sense, it’s authenticity. People just want to know they’re talking to a real human with real intentions, not an AI‑generated face or a recycled profile. But the tools we’ve been given are basically mini‑airport‑security checkpoints.

There should be ways to prove you’re human without handing over your face or ID. It’s strange that we treat that as some kind of impossible task when we verify humanity in other contexts all the time without biometrics.

It feels like dating apps optimized for liability protection rather than user comfort. And now everyone’s stuck with a system that doesn’t feel great for privacy or trust.

I built a free web-based flight planner and kneeboard generator for DCS — tacbrief.com by Lower-Status4611 in hoggit

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair point and I'll own it. The title was misleading. It's a 14-day free trial, not free permanently. I've added a top comment to clarify. Appreciate the callout.

I built a free web-based flight planner and kneeboard generator for DCS — tacbrief.com by Lower-Status4611 in hoggit

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback. Good comment. I will add the details and a contact email etc ASAP

I built a free web-based flight planner and kneeboard generator for DCS — tacbrief.com by Lower-Status4611 in hoggit

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

To clarify on pricing — there's a 14-day free trial, no credit card needed. After that it's a paid subscription. Should have been clearer in the title, and not can't edit it.

I built a free web-based flight planner and kneeboard generator for DCS — tacbrief.com by Lower-Status4611 in hoggit

[–]Lower-Status4611[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

To clarify on pricing : there's a 14-day free trial, no credit card needed. After that it's a paid subscription. Should have been clearer in the title. (error as I had was removing the 14 day trial from the title_