- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Lonely this Valentine’s Day? Thinking about filling the void with a kindred soul, scientifically plucked from the rat race of humanity via a meticulously crafted love algorithm to be your permanent soul mate and snuggle bunny, forever and ever? You’re better off going to a bar – at least, according to an article about the effectiveness of online dating websites commissioned by the Association for Psychological Science. The report has harsh words (PDF) for the current structure of online dating; an overemphasis on “profiles,” psychologists say, creates a “grocery store” mentality, causing potential daters to become overly picky, and de-emphasizes the face-to-face meeting, which is the key aspect to compatibility and cannot be determined by an online profile. The best way to meet a future partner, then, is still to meet for drinks. Or coffee. Or both.
Without the advantage online dating purports to hold over the ancient, get-out-into-the-world-and-do-things strategy of dating, regulating the safety of online daters becomes even more important, not only because of, you know, safety and morality, but also to the future viability of sites like match.com and eharmony. To that end, legislation is pending in Illinois that would force online dating websites to prominently disclose whether they conduct background checks on their members, mirroring similar laws passed in Texas and New Jersey (who says nothing good comes out of New Jersey?). Currently, most major online dating websites do screen members against federal sex offender registries, but the proposed legislation would call for them to do even more, checking criminal court records, for example, and disclosing to users what the website does with members who have prior criminal convictions.
All in all, online dating in America may be becoming more trouble than it’s worth. One alternative: move to China. Those guys seem like they would pass a background check.
– Shane Valenzi
Recent Blog Posts
- Neiman Marcus Shoppers Suffer Financial Injuries! Possibly
- Facebook Gears up for Trademark Fight With Brazilian Competitor
- Draft Kings: A fantasy sports betting website valued close to $1 Billion
- Are Design Patents Really a Wise Investment Now?
- The Door Left Ajar: Navigating the Patent-Antitrust Paradox in Light of King Drug Co. v. GlaxoSmithKline
- Will Feds Preempt Tougher State Data Breach Laws?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution