The focus on the visual to the exclusion of body language and personality chemistry just makes it a bad all around deal. From my experience, naturally meeting girls in the world is a much more pleasant experience.
If you look for anything else, like long term happiness, its a very hard find a partner on such platform. Maybe I am naive but I still think this is what most people want in their lives. But it ain't as easy as swiping around - one needs to go out there, make some effort to look attractive, expose oneself to as many potential partners as possible. And have patience, tons of patience.
It is how women are genetically programmed to be; it is why the Sabines accepted their raping-roman husbands, why Helen left with Paris, it is why Cleopatra accepted to be the mistress of Caesar and Anthony.
It is why women lubricate when they percieve a threatening male, it is why the Stockholm syndrom exists -- because it increases the chances of survival of a woman and her children if she can become the 10th wife of a man who just recently slain all her male relatives.
As they say: a picture is more than a 1000 words.
It's much more prone to manipulation than direct, spontaneous contact.
Think about doing a job search. You could find a potential employer at a park/bar/whatever, but it's a lot more efficient to go to a job site where people are actively looking to employ you. It's similar for dating. It's definitely possible to meet someone to date in the real world. It's just a lot less efficient than doing so in a space where the only people there are those actively looking for the same thing you are.
Plus, people typically go to the same bars/parks and have the same circle of friends. The absolute number of single people will be relatively small and you can go through them relatively quickly. There's also the awkwardness of dealing with failed relationships.
I wouldn't put to much blame on dating apps in general, as the whole category of "dating apps" has become rather large and differentiated. And the more differentiated it becomes, the more I see it reflecting existing social behaviour.
On Tinder a small number of attracive men gets to hook up. But hasn't that always been the case when the objective has been to "hook up"? When you pick someone up for the night at you local bar and have rather free choice, hasn't the choice always rather fallen on the hot guy?
But there is a whole world of other dating services outside of Tinder, that are not focused on hook ups, but rather on finding a partner, and the difference shows!
My a piece of anecdotal evidence:
On Tinder I got ~0 matches - I'd say I'm "average" looking, not "hot" enough for Tinder - but on Bumble I get regular good matches. In contrast one of my "hot" friends has no problems getting matches on Tinder, but when he tried out Bumble his number of matches were just slightly more than mine.
I still prefer dating without apps, and the overreliance on them in my youngish (~25) age group is worrying me a bit, but the world for non-hot men is not as bleak as it's often made out to be.
* dating apps aren't the only way to meet people; you can still meet potential partners at parks/bars/work (Americans love office romances apparantly)
* dating apps do favor the conventionally good looking folks but its also about presentation, which can be gamed and its not a secret how to.
I agree that its a little unfair that the men who are good looking get all the benefits without having to put in any effort. But hasn't that been the case with inherited wealth too?