>>34160093
Okay, I'll add a "you got rejected!" message - Much kinder. But seriously, imo the "cruelty" is just inherent to dating apps

In ordinary social situations, you get into a relationship by a gradual escalation of social cues. You start off with a short glance across the room to someone you otherwise wouldn't think about. Over time, you engage with each other more, spend more time together, think about each other more, like each other more, and the relationship becomes more serious. If the relationship was never meant to be, oftentimes you just wouldn't have gotten that close to begin with and neither of you would've given it much thought

Compare that to a dating app where, before you even message someone, you're hoping they'll be your future partner

That dynamic can't be fixed by rewording the "unavailable person" message or making it more specific

I think what's more likely to make people feel less-bad about rejection is adding "likes" and removing the r9k algorithm, because those things can make the escalation of the relationship more gradual like in real life - Not getting a reply after only sending a "like" isn't going to feel as bad as spending a minute to send someone a nice message and getting nothing in return. But those changes have their own trade-offs, especially on an app with a 5:1 gender ratio. I'll revisit this design choice as the demographics continue to change

>>34160162
Favorite users, you mean? No

>>34155277
Not sure if serious

Have you tried not joining the normie clubs?

>>508756604
Actually, Israel did. There's enough evidence now to prove that the IDF killed the hostages while they were being taken, then covered it up.

Look up the Hannibal Directive.