TBH the approach Muzmatch seems to be based on seems rather interesting.
-: Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family. (Family shame)
-: GPS validation, selfie verification etc. (Anti-catfishing)
-: Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)
-: Rewards for good behaviour. (Anti abuse & dick pic behaviour)
It's impressive, culturally, but as a father of a 13 year old girl, some of these features appeal. Yes I am protective because I've seen how bad men can be on dating sites. However I recognise I have no right to impose myself on her privacy. Yes, educate her about the darker side of online dating. Yes, be that friend that does not judge and is there to support her. BUT no, do not control her. That is simply wrong. I love the fact my daughter has an independent spirit and does, rightly, stand up to me when she feels she is right and feels comfortable talking to me about pretty much anything (or her mum ;) ). Most importantly we trust her and give her the privacy she cherishes.
The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when this logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in such a way?
As an aside, about being a father. When my daughter was born I spoke to my neighbour who had two 18 & 19 year old girls. I asked him how it all works. His answer was "You have them until they are 14, and then you are there to pick up the pieces."
The other night I took a taxi home and started talking to the driver. He mentioned his 13 year old daughter was only allowed a basic phone and 1 hour of Facebook, observed, every night, just in case. I was surprised. I just regularly ensure my daughter knows about the various dangers and that she can always talk to us. I've seen this too many times though. Parents blocking porn web sites, then me hopping onto their computer and showing them porn on twitter.
Anyway getting back onto Muzmatch. I suspect it is a good cultural match, where the idea that women/men cannot be trusted and must be controlled, but still providing the ability for women/men to hide their identity from their own family and friends to prevent that control.
> Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family. (Family shame)
...
> Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)
...
> The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when this logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in such a way?
It is not about you enforcing this on your daughter. The religion demands it. So if the app also facilitates that, it will appeal more to the target audience.
> It is not about you enforcing this on your daughter. The religion demands it.
Coming from a Muslim family myself, I can tell that Islam has so many rules most Muslims (if not all, given that some of these rules are contradictory) ignore most of them and only follow the ones they strongly agree with and are part of their culture since probably pre-Islamic times. So no, I would have to say I disagree here, Muslims who control their daughters like that do it because they want it, not because "the religion demands it" though that's the primary excuse they use (I've seen fathers who drink alcohol and eat pork for example or don't pray and yet still go full control freak on their daughters "because Islam demands it".). And yes, this goes for most religions but because Muslims tend to be much more culturally conservative than others, it shows a lot more in their cases.
It is so disappointing to see a YC startup directed only to a particular religion. Where I come from (India) there are things like if you belong to religion X then you cannot go to temple of religion Y during prayers, etc. But we regard those policies as regressive and are trying to remove them.
And regarding the idea that Muslims are looking for marriage and not for casual encounters, it is possible to achieve it without focusing on religion aspect. For example, in India websites like shaadi.com (shaadi literally means marriage) are used as dating websites where participants know that they plan to marry in near future.
Also, I would expect VCs with supposedly liberal beliefs to stand for inter-religion marriages as they are much more dangerous (seriously, you can get killed for it) and not for an app "where single muslims meet".
It's a (large) niche market with specific needs that aren't met by traditional dating sites. Why is building a product to cater to those needs bad or wrong?
If I'm a Muslim and I want to date/marry a Muslim and there are a lot of things I have to solve for as a result of that, it makes a whole lot of sense that technology help me solve for those things.
This maybe your Indian bias showing where communal issues are a little more fiery. Religion based dating/relationship sites are fairly common in America and a lucrative business [1][2]. Not sure why we should suddenly start getting worried just when Muslims build their own as well. Seems like a sound investment from YC's POV.
In France where I live, I suspect such community-based dating apps would be frowned upon and seen as close-minded. Most people I know see religion as something people slowly liberate themselves from and not as a silo inside which you get married while keeping people from other faiths outside of your life.
But I also understand this is a cultural difference with America, and I'm curious to read views from other people around the world in this thread.
EDIT: not sure why I'm being downvoted, I'm trying to give a perspective from a different part of the world which I think is relevant to how such an app might be perceived there. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
Point taken. I still think many people here would frown upon such websites, but maybe it's also a matter of my living in an echo chamber of atheist and internationalist liberals :-)
I'd be curious to know what percentage of French people are strictly looking for a partner inside their religious or ethnic community compared to other countries.
> Most people I know see religion as something people slowly liberate themselves from and not as a silo
As a French living in Paris coming from a Muslim family I think ironically you may be the one living in a silo. Most French Muslims do not agree at all with "religion as something people slowly liberate themselves from", this may be common among your mostly white liberal friends I suppose but it is _not_ the case for Muslims. Also, as have been pointed out, there are plenty of Jewish, Muslims and Catholics dating apps in France.
Yes, I admitted as much in my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14921916). Out of curiosity, do you think this has always been the case or is it a more recent trend?
And... we are back to what people can or cannot do arguments.
If things are illegal they can typically get shut down directly. They don't need to be 'frowned' upon. Things being frowned upon shows a cultural preference or development.
>"Temples of any religion are usually not public grounds and can enforce visitation rules."
This is patently untrue. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I'm neither Muslim, nor Hindu, nor Sikh, nor Buddhist nor Shinto and I have been welcomed into everyone of those great religion's temples in many different countries throughout the world. They are very much public places.
There are different interpretations of the word "public". The parent I think uses it as a legal term, i.e., deviations can be reported to and handled by law enforcement: e.g., in the US one can photograph anything and anyone on a public street, but usually cannot walk there naked. This is the definition I personally use, too.
The meaning you seem to be using the term to mean welcoming everyone by choice of the owner (e.g., "everyone can come to my restaurant"). However, in this case the owner can also impose their own visitation rules (e.g., prohibiting a dress type that is offensive to one group but perfectly acceptable to another).
I think what riverbashing was saying was that if a particular temple wanted to restricted access it could.
I think that here in the US a church/etc can do the same thing using a 'private property' law of some sort. Something to the effect of "It's our private property and we don't want <whomever> here"
That said, most religious groups that I've seen (in the US) try to welcome potential new members and have (like you said) welcomed visitors as well.
I see, I hadn't considered the legal context of the term public in the OPs statement simply because they are such communal places. But yes that makes sense.
Shaadi.com owns a number of related websites targeted at particular Indian communities. I live in Kolkata and ads for bengalimatrimony.com are everywhere (in a manner of speaking).
Completely agree. But imagine a YC funded startup where single people of Brahmin caste meet. I can understand local people developing apps like that but not a well-respected, liberal, California-based VC firm.
> But imagine a YC funded startup where single people of Brahmin caste meet. I can understand local people developing apps like that but not a well-respected, liberal, California-based VC firm.
YC is about innovation. Hundreds of start ups make it to YC, I don't see why an app for Brahmin singles to mingle is inherently not worthy of YC.
Instead of speaking in riddles why don't you just say plainly what you are thinking.
That's already how many users of existing dating sites actually use them in reality. So, the existence of such a thing would not surprise me, nor would YC investing in it... (they're capitalists, not superheroes)
Seriously. I live in a city that is comprised of 50% white people. The vast majority of women's profiles exclusively say they want a white guy (source: me using Match). And when I use other apps, I get recommended matches (source: me using CoffeeMeetsBagel), they only recommend me women of my own ethnicity despite me never had explicitly suggested I cared about ethnicity.
FWIW, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't have preferences, but for a lot of apps and depending on your gender/ethnic composition, the inclusion of other ethnicities doesn't really mean you are exactly on a level playing field.
I suspect the most common comment on HN would be asking what Splinder plans to offer to differentiate itself from Where White People Meet, the startup in that space that got media attention last year.
Islam isn't a race. Anyone under the sun could become a Muslim and use this service. People can't however change their race (who would've thought?). I've never been so perplexed by a comment on this site in my life.
@angersock
not sure that suggesting an internet stranger -- to 'relax' right at the start of the feedback, is a respectful way engage in constructive conversation.
Perhaps true (likely - but I am not completely familiar with that religion); but doesn't this make the assumption that if you are Muslim, you are automatically Islamic?
Yeah, I know that's how it's kinda played out (much like how the BKDs here in America insist we are a "Christian Nation" - despite things like the Treaty of Tripoli and other documents to the contrary) - but that doesn't make it objectively true.
Of course, in some cases (even here in the west), if you dare mention such a thing within 'the faith' - you could find yourself on the other side of an honor killing by your own family (especially if you are a woman; such enlightenment).
To think, this is the exact same place many evangelical Christians want to take our nation too as well. Lovely.
Agreed. Frankly I should think that many Muslims would find this entire notion offensive. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they (a) necessarily want to find a muslim partner (b) have family with backward and regressive views (c) live in a society with backward and regressive views (d) want to support the continuation of backward and regressive views
IMHO in many traditional societies young people want to shake off the controlling habits of former generations and such an app would actually be a concrete step backwards.
(Full disclosure: My wife is Chinese muslim, and we have muslim friends in Australia, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Tunisia, UK, etc. I am personally irreligious.)
> Frankly I should think that many Muslims would find this entire notion offensive.
Many people find anything offensive, but I don't see any particularly good reason to think there is anything particularly deserving of it in this concept.
> Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they (a) necessarily want to find a muslim partner
I would think that even Muslims who do not want exclusively to find a Muslim partner would recognize that there are Muslims who do wish that.
> IMHO in many traditional societies young people want to shake off the controlling habits of former generations and such an app would actually be a concrete step backwards.
Allowing people who don't share their open attitude toward dating he opportunity to have a dating forum that supports their preferences does not prevent those with open attitudes from pursuing more open venues, which are not in short supply.
Christian Mingle doesn't stop Christians that whose dating interested isn't religiously restrictive from using any of the vast area of open-preference dating apps in the universe, the Muslim equivalent would be no different in that regard.
>"Many people find anything offensive, but I don't see any particularly good reason to think there is anything particularly deserving of it in this concept."
Except that arranged marriage is still common in Muslim society. See the section: "Islamic dating practices and community programs":
> Except that arranged marriage is still common in Muslim society.
I fail to see how the fact that arranged marriage remains common in Muslim society is germane to the point that sentence is offered in response to or even the wider discussion of this app, except insofar as both arranged marriages and the existing structures which support it are an incumbent factor which any dating app targeting that population necessarily must contend with.
> (b) have family with backward and regressive views (c) live in a society with backward and regressive views (d) want to support the continuation of backward and regressive views
Wait, what are you implying here? A dating site exclusive to Muslims isn't suggestive of B, C or D. There are dating sites exclusive to African Americans for example, are they backwards and regressive too?
Races aren't objective facts of biology they are mutable social constructs (both in terms of identity and ascribed status.)
It's true that you can't directly control (though you can influence)) ascribed racial status (the rest of society collectively does that) but, that's true of all ascribed statuses (including ascribed religion, though that's often not significant in modern Western societies.)
I don't believe there is anything in the in the religion that requires it and that interfaith unions are acceptable provided they are between Ahl al-Kitab("People of the Book) - Jews, Christian and Zoroastrians.
This is actually correct. But where I come from, this is frowned upon. The real problem is not the religious doctrine, but the practical problem of resolving cultural conflicts between the families.
I can't see it working, dating sites aren't for people who get married quickly. They, as every site, need users stick for years, or LTV will be too low and not cover the UAC. So, it should be casual dating as in: 7000 contacts and 200 met in person over 12 years (me on mamba.ru). Users like me are definitely very profitable. Users who see 100 profiles, chat with 20, and get married and leave, aren't.
What is the LTV of a user like you? match.com charges ~$20 per year. How many years are you planning to use it (or any other dating website / app) for?
You are missing a key point here - this is a matchmaking app masquerading as a dating app. So they can extract a lot more value from a customer despite their brief tenure on the app.
Even though a bunch of startup blog posts say not to make a dating service it looks like they have had great success with this. This isn't a tinder for Muslims its more like a hip Christian Mingle for Muslims. Dating verticals seem to be easier to figure out than the general one. Also, stressing marriage and long commitment is better.
Also, this is great marketing for Muzmatch by techcrunch. Title entices people for engagement, statements enforce the values of the people that will use the service and the purpose / mission statement is well mixed by the central thesis.
For every hit like Tinder, there are a hundred dead dating apps that never got enough traction to take off or couldn't nail down the brutal acquire-retain-monetize math. Tinder's greatest "growth hack" is that it's used for hookups. They don't lose two users every time they make a successful match.
That's why people say to not start a dating service, because the base fundamentals are terrible. You need a tremendous advantage in acquisition or retention to survive.
JDate isn't actually limited to Jews only, I'm not sure if it's still the case but few years ago Jews were actually a minority on JDate.
It was at some time considered the 'better dating site' as far as demographic goes before dating sites for the 'better educated and better paid' demographics became more prevalent.
> Younas — a young Muslim in London — bootstrapped and built the initial app himself [...] he plans monetizing beyond the business of matching by offering related services, such as, for example, helping users find a wedding venue.
In London there is a parallel legal system that does run counter to British law. Here hidden-camera footage how a "Muslim judge" suggests to a woman, she should just accept being beaten on a regular basis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZCFdHkd4A
Hence, counseling or after-marriage check-ins with the women whether they are threated well would be a real help.
>"Not just market size — we’re more than 100 times larger market than the Jewish market, for example — but the real difference is the seriousness and intent."
Is that not kind of self-righteous and condescending? What is the implication, that people from other religious groups or those without religious affiliations somehow aren't serious about meeting someone? Or that their intentions are not quite as sincere? Why is this somehow their exclusive domain?
> So, for example, all users have to take a selfie via the app so their profile can be manually verified to help boost trust and keep out spammers; users don’t have to provide their real name though, and can choose not to display photos on their profiles or blur photos unless there’s an active match. Users are also asked to rate others they have interacted with — and these ratings are fed into the matching algorithm, with the aim of surfacing “quality users” and promoting positive behaviors.
All of this sounds like a big improvement on Tinder. I'm not Muslim, but I'd try a dating site that worked like this. They should open it up but allow users to restrict to the Muslim subset if they choose.
Anecdote but for some reason when I signed up to Minder (actually is a Muslim Tinder) when I was drunk, for some reason it thought I was a woman (probably because also drunk at previous date I'd selected female pronouns on Facebook), so in an interesting turn of events, the Muslim dating app was suggesting I date men.
Well, too bad. Look what happened to ChristianMingle. From what I hear, most of the men on there aren't even Christian, they're just cruising for what they think is an easy lay.
At some level most things cannot be consistently proven though -- mathematics is premised in axioms that are not complete and consistent insofar as they cannot be proven by the systems of mathematics. They have to be taken as true, however, for the remaining systems of mathematics to be consistent. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorems: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_the...
The larger point is that derogatory comments about belief systems only point to the speakers subjective inability to comprehend said system, nothing objective about the system itself.
You can call me subjective but you will have a harder time calling me wrong. The magic man in the clouds as a theory of how the universe works has been debunked so many times and has so little evidence it should be discounted out of hand.
Math on the hand is so useful it was used to designed my cell phone, my car and the computer I type this on.
One of these these things has evidence and rich history of working and the other is religion. There is some false equivalence going on with your saying that we can't explain every detail of math it is somehow comparable to a thoroughly incorrect view of reality.
What has the first paragraph got to do with this? There are things that cannot be proven, but what has that got to do with faith? Point me to an entirely abstract religion whose "faith" concerns only such mathematical concepts?
> derogatory comments about belief systems only point to the speakers subjective inability to comprehend said system
Why? Where do you make this point? Can I play that game too? "Failure to agree with my comments only point to listeners subjective inability to comprehend said comments."
Also, I thought that was the definition of "faith" - Is that inherently "derogatory"?
Heh in a roundabout way Russell's teapot came back to haunt him for the same reason as my earlier comment. His goal in attempting to create an internally consistent body of mathematics with Whitehead was proven impossible by Godel--Russel's teapot was mathematics as he could not meet the burden of proof at the axiomatic level, yet we still believe it to be true.
This is not to say that mathematics is wrong, of course, just that since it is not internally consistent -- and since nothing is -- everything becomes an object of belief at some level. Therefore relying on notions like "the burden of proof lies upon the person making an assertion or claim" is turtles all the way down -- NOTHING is provable and EVERYTHING is a belief.
If that's the case, then it's tautological. In practice, "provability" is partially quantitative, not starkly Boolean (True/False)
I'm not sure Russell's Teapot concept was troubled by his later failures to create an internally consistent body of mathematics:
> Russel's teapot was mathematics as he could not meet the burden of proof at the axiomatic level, yet we still believe it to be true.
You don't need to meet a BoP at an axiomatic level, by definition of what an axiom is. We still accept the analogy of the teapot, because the axioms are accepted by standard. If this acceptance is "faith", it is still far from religious faith, whose "axioms" are not reduced/irreducible, but complex, dependent (on reason) and ad-hoc.
"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. " Maybe reading some Chesterton would help.
Does it help? Isn't that a distortion of religion? I've read some Popper.
This feels like the "god of the gaps" argument, that reduces god to pretty much anything. In reality, religion is far less abstract.
The abstract axioms of reason aren't really the same as religious articles of faith.
> It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all
Depends what you mean by "reality". The closest institution wrt the nature of reality, is "science" which strives to discover its nature, and even implies by method that it is purely phenomenal. Compare/contrast with a church - which defends its doctrines rather than verify them.
-: Completely privacy (nickname and pictures hidden), particularly from family. (Family shame)
-: GPS validation, selfie verification etc. (Anti-catfishing)
-: Walis, or guardians in on the chat. (Family approval)
-: Rewards for good behaviour. (Anti abuse & dick pic behaviour)
It's impressive, culturally, but as a father of a 13 year old girl, some of these features appeal. Yes I am protective because I've seen how bad men can be on dating sites. However I recognise I have no right to impose myself on her privacy. Yes, educate her about the darker side of online dating. Yes, be that friend that does not judge and is there to support her. BUT no, do not control her. That is simply wrong. I love the fact my daughter has an independent spirit and does, rightly, stand up to me when she feels she is right and feels comfortable talking to me about pretty much anything (or her mum ;) ). Most importantly we trust her and give her the privacy she cherishes.
The thing is these dating apps are for 18+ year olds and that is when this logically fails for me. What right do I have to control an adult in such a way?
As an aside, about being a father. When my daughter was born I spoke to my neighbour who had two 18 & 19 year old girls. I asked him how it all works. His answer was "You have them until they are 14, and then you are there to pick up the pieces."
The other night I took a taxi home and started talking to the driver. He mentioned his 13 year old daughter was only allowed a basic phone and 1 hour of Facebook, observed, every night, just in case. I was surprised. I just regularly ensure my daughter knows about the various dangers and that she can always talk to us. I've seen this too many times though. Parents blocking porn web sites, then me hopping onto their computer and showing them porn on twitter.
Anyway getting back onto Muzmatch. I suspect it is a good cultural match, where the idea that women/men cannot be trusted and must be controlled, but still providing the ability for women/men to hide their identity from their own family and friends to prevent that control.