Having almost fallen prey to a scam site with a fake customer service number in my bid to get answers regarding my lifetime ban from Match.com, I made one last attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery, sending my Substack post to Match customer service (via their website form) with the message that I would write a follow-up if they sent me an explanation. Once again I received an email stating that my question needed to be escalated to another department, and once again I received this message back, this time by an Ana S., although I have no idea why it matters that the robot (human or otherwise) provides a name:
We received your inquiry regarding the status of your Match membership. Please know that due to our Terms of Use, your Match account has been terminated. We believe this action to be in the best interest of our member community. Any new accounts created will be subject to review and will be immediately terminated. For reference, our Terms of Use can be accessed at the following link: http://www.match.com/registration/membagr.aspx Best, Customer Care Support
In the meantime, I discovered that these inexplicable bannings have been occurring for close to fifteen years. I will probably never know if this is a story of exclusion for wrongthink. It seems to be at least partially a story of monopolization, although I don’t know if I am also banned from other sites owned by Match group (I still have an unfinished profile on one and no desire to create yet another profile on a new site, even as an experiment). It is highly unlikely that it is a story of malicious reporting, as I was only on the site for a few hours, I had not corresponded with anyone, and my photos and text had not yet been approved. Unless this is a story of mistaken identity (via my email address and cell phone number, rather than my name), it is not a story of getting banned for a criminal record.
It does, however, seem to be a story of the hazards of living life in the digital realm, where you can be judged wanting by an invisible (possible nonhuman) jury, disenfranchised for an unknowable offense, and prevented from any opportunity to appeal to a human being (unless it is someone trying to scam you).
So I’m going old school. For now I will search for my future partner in (thought) crime by skulking around town in my “Unlimited Hangout” t-shirt, hoping for a nod of recognition.
Top image: Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca trailer.jpg/ Wikimedia Commons
That all sounds sketchy. Maybe Match.com is afraid of people who think outside their pre-determined parameters. They may not want people to get together who might have different points of view.
It does sound sketchy, doesn't it? I think she's right about the unreachableness of modern on-line enterprises. Part of their begabuck success formula is precisely that they don't have phone numbers you can call. They really are, operationally, "six guys in a basement" and that would add hundreds more to have to divide up the cash with. But I still have a hard time believing they would ban Susan for the innocuous connections she exhibits. They would have to ban half the population based on that criteria, and they can't be that stupid and short-sighted. I suspect there is some formulaic reason having to do with her email address getting onto some list of bad people that they bought or otherwise acquired externally, or that someone "denounced her" and they reason that it's not worth taking their time to sort it out because it doesn't happen that often, although - again - it's hard to see how Susan could have generated sufficient animosity for such a denunciation. I don't think a real person at Match has reviewed her interactions with them yet. It's all been bots and AI. For them to review hers would mean they'd have to review the other million or ten that are to them indistinguishable, and that would cost some coin. Couldn't buy that jet to take to Davos next year if they did that.
You will undoubtedly be better off for the route you are taking. I have watched friends, relatives, associates and their circles involved in the on-line dating scene over the years. And I have come to the conclusion that the last way in the world you want to try to find a good mate is by listing the qualities and attributes you think you want and listing what you think yours are. I don't think human nature works like that. Our consciousness isn't well-connected to what really works on strong emotional levels. It's the visceral things that make a difference: manner of talking, timber of voice, unconscious gestures, the look in the eyes, the way one smiles and frowns, how one reacts under stress and when one is scared, even the scent a person has - pheromones. It takes time to figure this stuff out and you can only do it in person. Trying to do it remotely gives a false sense of connection that can be strangely incongruous in person. And it can lower guards and judgement. My opinion, of course. For what it's worth.
That was my experience when I tried online dating a long time ago. But I do know three people who have found their spouses and one who had a long-term relationship from it. That's what keeps people gambling, I guess.
That all sounds sketchy. Maybe Match.com is afraid of people who think outside their pre-determined parameters. They may not want people to get together who might have different points of view.
It does sound sketchy, doesn't it? I think she's right about the unreachableness of modern on-line enterprises. Part of their begabuck success formula is precisely that they don't have phone numbers you can call. They really are, operationally, "six guys in a basement" and that would add hundreds more to have to divide up the cash with. But I still have a hard time believing they would ban Susan for the innocuous connections she exhibits. They would have to ban half the population based on that criteria, and they can't be that stupid and short-sighted. I suspect there is some formulaic reason having to do with her email address getting onto some list of bad people that they bought or otherwise acquired externally, or that someone "denounced her" and they reason that it's not worth taking their time to sort it out because it doesn't happen that often, although - again - it's hard to see how Susan could have generated sufficient animosity for such a denunciation. I don't think a real person at Match has reviewed her interactions with them yet. It's all been bots and AI. For them to review hers would mean they'd have to review the other million or ten that are to them indistinguishable, and that would cost some coin. Couldn't buy that jet to take to Davos next year if they did that.
BTW I reported that scam site to the feds, but they are probably busy hunting down wrongthinkers on twitter.
You will undoubtedly be better off for the route you are taking. I have watched friends, relatives, associates and their circles involved in the on-line dating scene over the years. And I have come to the conclusion that the last way in the world you want to try to find a good mate is by listing the qualities and attributes you think you want and listing what you think yours are. I don't think human nature works like that. Our consciousness isn't well-connected to what really works on strong emotional levels. It's the visceral things that make a difference: manner of talking, timber of voice, unconscious gestures, the look in the eyes, the way one smiles and frowns, how one reacts under stress and when one is scared, even the scent a person has - pheromones. It takes time to figure this stuff out and you can only do it in person. Trying to do it remotely gives a false sense of connection that can be strangely incongruous in person. And it can lower guards and judgement. My opinion, of course. For what it's worth.
That was my experience when I tried online dating a long time ago. But I do know three people who have found their spouses and one who had a long-term relationship from it. That's what keeps people gambling, I guess.