The destruction of OkCupid by Match Group looks like a politically motivated attack against the minorities and intellectual power users who used to flock there.
OkCupid used to be the best place to match diverse people.
They crowdsourced thousands of multiple choice questions from which you built your search filter:
- Which answers you accept
- How important each is to you
- Your answer for the other side of the match equation
- Voluntary explanation
The match results were factored into friendship, dating, and sex. "Friendship" contained ethics and communication style, so it also worked for business partnerships.
Then Match Group bought it.
For a while they let it be, but then they:
- Removed the factoring - no more looking for friends or sex, only complete packages
- Removed search - no more finding the best matches anywhere on the planet, now you just swipe like Tinder
- Removed keyword search - no more finding niche interests not included in the questions, like "furry"
- Removed the search filter - now everything has to be the same to match: both of you must have or not have tattoos for example, never mind what you like - one of my likes went from 95% to 50% match
- Deleted the voluntary explanations without warning, so no one could back theirs up
- Deleted ~95% of the match questions without warning
- Deleted all accumulated likes, which were the best matching people around the world with maximal couple/friend/sex partner potential except, for example, location for now. They broke the profile links, so bookmarks became useless.
- They delete matches (mutual likes) if they haven't been messaging in a while, as if that meant they're not a match - no, they have a temporary problem, such as life situation
- They police inconvenient statements in the users' introductions as the political situation evolves - the day after the mass murderer healthcare insurance CEO got shot, the section in my profile containing (for months) "fuck the healthcare system - make a better one" was deleted without sending me a copy to edit
If they got access to the DNA data that many companies collect to analyse heritage and health, the eugenics could work well.
By "work well" you mean damage society
If they'd choose to do dysgenics, sure. Why though? Making a slave race?
Humans could be improved through eugenics. It works on animals:
Dogs have better social skills than wolves = eugenics. Some dogs have trouble breathing = dysgenics.
Improving humans is part of transhumanism. It's compatible with human rights.
Humans could be designed to work well in their lives:
(can even be done by trading babies, without gene editing)
'
Humanity could be designed to work well in its evolution:
'
Transhumans just need to stay away from conservatives who don't tolerate difference.
(The opposite of what the for-profit sensationalist media does, smearing the wildest progressive stunts in the conservative's face, because rage sells, anger is addictive. The blame is mistakenly placed on the depicted, not the media breaking people's boundaries by pushing incompatible people into knowledge of each other.)
Genocidal people having used eugenics as an excuse for mass murder doesn't make eugenics itself bad. Blaming eugenics does nothing to prevent further genocide. Hate does genocide, the excuses do not.
Similarly, over-optimistic idiots slamming one version of communism on a whole nation without prototyping different versions in villages first, causing everyone to fall flat on their faces, doesn't make communism itself bad. Blaming communism does nothing to prevent further mistakes. Prototypes should be cheap!
We don't ban money because it can be used to hurt people - we regulate dangerous stuff to protect human rights. Or, should regulate.