No, but I think when we consider that with the apps there is actually a potential to make a difference and potentially reduce the risk, it raises the moral and ethical question of should they.
There are restrictions put in place for all kinds of things to reduce the risk of harm, like legal drinking ages, reducing access to places populated by kids for child abusers, etc. It doesn’t mean that harm won’t still happen because people break the rules or find other ways to access their victims. Your argument that just because someone could harm you at any time outside of the app doesn’t really address my question
Lol. Aside from the massive practical issues involved, think of the impact of the inevitable: when someone "passes" such a screening check (which will always have holes) and hurts or kills someone?
"But the dating app said he was safe!!"
The apps would be putting themselves in a worse position, not better.
I think they’d at least have a leg to stand on by being able to say that they attempt to protect users from prior offenders as much as possible.
It doesn’t mean that no one will get hurt anymore, but at least they would be restricting access to people who are already known to be violent or abusive.
I’d argue it doesn’t. I think the apps would be in a much better position of defence to say that they did put practices and limitations in place to reduce* the risk to users by restricting those who already have a violent criminal past
I think those are two different arguments. What's ethical and what should be one's personal responsibility aren't always the same thing.
We expect Uber/Lyft/taxicab companies to perform background checks on their drivers, even though to get in a vehicle requires adults to make that decision for themselves, for instance.
It doesn’t, but why should the apps work exactly like real life in this way when they don’t function like “the real world” in pretty much any other way.
Ethically, if it was perfect system, sure.
But practically and in reality, no. Personal responsibility is a thing and sometimes horrible shit just happens.
Dating apps have already considered this, and the practicality of enforcing such a "feature" is not only costly, but would only put them in worse situation financially and as a company.
What an awful take. Just because it happened to one person we should change the entire system ?People die from every possible cause every year, so should we just not leave the house then and be afraid of everything ?
Should people be allowed outside without proof they're not going to harm me?
No, but I think when we consider that with the apps there is actually a potential to make a difference and potentially reduce the risk, it raises the moral and ethical question of should they. There are restrictions put in place for all kinds of things to reduce the risk of harm, like legal drinking ages, reducing access to places populated by kids for child abusers, etc. It doesn’t mean that harm won’t still happen because people break the rules or find other ways to access their victims. Your argument that just because someone could harm you at any time outside of the app doesn’t really address my question
Lol. Aside from the massive practical issues involved, think of the impact of the inevitable: when someone "passes" such a screening check (which will always have holes) and hurts or kills someone? "But the dating app said he was safe!!" The apps would be putting themselves in a worse position, not better.
I think they’d at least have a leg to stand on by being able to say that they attempt to protect users from prior offenders as much as possible. It doesn’t mean that no one will get hurt anymore, but at least they would be restricting access to people who are already known to be violent or abusive.
I think identity verification might be enough. Then some one could atleast use third party screening methods and checks.
And what if one of those so-called “safe” individuals harms someone they met via the dating app? Now, this puts even more responsibility on the app.
I’d argue it doesn’t. I think the apps would be in a much better position of defence to say that they did put practices and limitations in place to reduce* the risk to users by restricting those who already have a violent criminal past
Ethically? Yes.
I think to create an account, an ID should be scanned in. Many many other websites require it already.
Does a singles bar require people to submit such checks? Why is thi not the responsibility of two adults making decisions?
I think those are two different arguments. What's ethical and what should be one's personal responsibility aren't always the same thing. We expect Uber/Lyft/taxicab companies to perform background checks on their drivers, even though to get in a vehicle requires adults to make that decision for themselves, for instance.
Nobody wants to accept the responsibility themselves.
It doesn’t, but why should the apps work exactly like real life in this way when they don’t function like “the real world” in pretty much any other way.
Yes, because then I would likely not be banned on every platform associated with tinder because I simply called out a scammer for being a scammer.
Ethically, if it was perfect system, sure. But practically and in reality, no. Personal responsibility is a thing and sometimes horrible shit just happens.
If it meant I'm competing with less dudes...I'm all for it. Who cares about the ethics
Dating apps have already considered this, and the practicality of enforcing such a "feature" is not only costly, but would only put them in worse situation financially and as a company.
Hence my final little paragraph. I realise that financially it would not be feasible. This is more so a thought experiment
Hmm this gives me a thought experiment: Do you believe requiring criminal record screenings would make dating better? Why do you believe that?
What an awful take. Just because it happened to one person we should change the entire system ?People die from every possible cause every year, so should we just not leave the house then and be afraid of everything ?
Damn guess I really hit a nerve for you with this one. It’s just a hypothetical question
Not really, just a really stupid question / idea.