The deliberation took place on Wednesday, March 4th, and was held in Chambers 221. The room was very large which was actually very helpful because there was a HUGE group of people who came to the discussion. So much so that there wasn’t enough chairs for everyone.
The deliberation focused on how we can make online dating websites or apps (such as Tinder and Match.com) safer. Approaches that I found the most interesting included more education and background checks.
The education approach discussed teaching students how to be safe on online dating platforms in schools. It also brought up an alternative that it could be taught within the app through notifications, reminders, and things of the sort. The purpose of this approach would be to teach and remind people of the dangers of online dating, and how to do it in the safest way possible.
The background check approach suggested that dating apps incorporate a mandatory background check for all users to complete before they are allowed to begin using the service. The background checks would include a criminal record check, and verification that the person is who the say they are. The purpose of this approach would be to prevent anyone from creating fake profiles and therefore preventing people who use the applications to prey on unknowing victims.
One person suggested a photo identification to go along with the security checks. They would require the person signing up to take an obscure photograph of themselves (what was discussed during the deliberation was a photo of you touching your ear with your pinkie) that they would not typically be able to find online.
In my opinion, though this would make internet dating a lot safer, this approach is not feasible. It is a huge lack of privacy for you to be required to submit the information they would require, and it is unrealistic for the app developers to have to go through millions of peoples data to permit them to use their app.
I actually thought the topics were interesting and I had opinions but the group was too big and it was difficult to participate.
In addition, I don’t think they did the best job of controlling the pros vs cons. They just let the discussion go after they proposed their questions and let them go. Also, they didn’t do follow up questions or paraphrase or any other deliberation skills (though this may have been due to the size and time restrictions).
Something that I liked about the deliberation was the variety of perspectives and suggestions the audience members brought. For example, someone compared the specific requirements people can select on the elite dating app to the babies with genetic enhancements. Yet another person countered this point by stating that though people are selective online, they are also going to be selective in real life as well.
In conclusion, I think that this discussion was very successful, as there were a lot of lively participants and the discussion was maintained throughout the entire time.
