"Moderated dating" is an interesting idea by itself.

Where both sides have to conform to a very strict etiquette (platform rules), until they both decide to move their relationship to next level anyway. I can see how it can appeal to some people.

That is what a chaperone was in thethe past, many cultures still have that set of rules thing until a certain point.

I think a chaperone is primarily a safeguard against indiscretions. Their raison d'etre is to make sure nobody damages the goods before you have decided on a suitable match for your daughter. Which I find rather archaic.

Chaperon protects social values. Values can and often should change, but the chaperon is a tool that isn't as good or bad as the value it protects.

One of the problems with this is that platforms have an incentive to use the platform rules for monetization - for example, by charging per message and restricting the ability to bypass the platform.

Seems like eHarmony might agree with you.

http://www.eharmony.co.uk/ehplus/

Seems a bit counterproductive to me!

Why would you choose to not have information about the other party, when you are trying to evaluate them?

I remember an interesting piece on the OKCupid blog where they said that they'd blanked out profile pictures for a special event (so people had to just look at what each other had written), and people who went on dates during that event rated their dates much higher.

If you don't trust your evaluation function to be optimizing for your actual values.

Because you don't want to disclose your information.

So you are saying that I would want to use a "moderated dating" platform if I needed a very strict etiquette in order to conceal that I was a dick?

<s>Sounds like an attractive place to me!</s>

All dating sites are moderated, to some degree. At least the mainstream ones. I can't think of one where you start by posting your home phone and address and full name.

You start by sending messages, establish a relationship. Then you elevate it to messaging/calling via other platforms or real world meetings at your own pace.

It's not for concealing that you're a dick (well, it could be), it's more for protecting you from who knows how many people with who knows what intentions. It's not a guarantee, but it's a filter that works fairly well.

How could this protect anyone from anything worse than the occasional verbal abuse? Real bad people with real bad intentions will most certainly not be frustrated by some automatic word filter or a ban on dick pics. They will probably be the /last/ ones to do anything obviously fishy. You just can't be a sneaky bastard luring in innocent victims and an obvious prick at the same time. Unless you are doing some amazingly charismatic virtuoso double bluffing, I suppose. Or you're just looking for a willing victim looking for a perp. I think the whole idea is beyond stupid.

> If you're allowing users to message each other you need human moderators

Sooo Tinder reviews every message? or did I misunderstand your point

Tinder doesn't operate over SMS and so isn't subject to that particular regulator. I have no idea how Tinder deals with harassment/death threats/etc.

   I have no idea how Tinder deals with harassment/death threats/etc.

I have no idea either, but suspect part of the answer is "frequently"

No question that this holds if humans know that they are talking to other humans. But do you think the same is true for humans who think they talk to bots?

This will make a wonderful Turing Test, won't it?

Wait, you need human moderators between the customer and the bot? Why?

No, he is saying you need human moderators if you're connecting two users and letting them speak to each other.

Well, there's a limit what even a bot should take...