现代情缘网做媒

郝福合

The internet has transformed the way people work and communicate. It has upended1 industries， from entertainment to retailing. But its most profound effect may well be on the biggest decision that most people make—choosing a mate.

In the early 1990s the notion of meeting a partner online seemed freakish2， and not a little3 pathetic. Today， in many places， it is normal. Smartphones have put virtual bars in people’s pockets， where singletons4 can mingle free from the constraints of social or physical geography. Globally， at least 200m people use digital dating services every month. In America more than a third of marriages now start with an online match-up. The internet is the second-most-popular way for Americans to meet people of the opposite sex， and is fast catching up with real-world “friend of a friend” introductions.

Digital dating is a massive social experiment， conducted on one of humanity’s most intimate and vital processes. Its effects are only just starting to become visible.

When Harry clicked on Sally5

Meeting a mate over the internet is fundamentally different from meeting one offline. In the physical world， partners are found in family networks or among circles of friends and colleagues. Meeting a friend of a friend is the norm. People who meet online are overwhelmingly likely to be strangers. As a result， dating digitally offers much greater choice. A bar， choir or office might have a few tens of potential partners for any one person. Online there are tens of thousands.

This greater choice—plus the fact that digital connections are made only with mutual consent—makes the digital dating market far more efficient than the offline kind. For some， that is bad news. Because of the gulf in pickiness between the sexes， a few straight6 men are doomed never to get any matches at all. On Tantan， a Chinese app， men express interest in 60% of women they see， but women are interested in just 6% of men; this dynamic means that 5% of men never receive a match. In offline dating， with a much smaller pool of men to fish from， straight women are more likely to couple up with men who would not get a look-in7 online.

For most people， however， digital dating offers better outcomes. Research has found that marriages in America between people who meet online are likely to last longer; such couples profess to be happier than those who met offline. The whiff8 of moral panic9 surrounding dating apps is vastly overblown10. Precious little11 evidence exists to show that opportunities online are encouraging infidelity. In America， divorce rates climbed until just before the advent12 of the internet， and have fallen since.

Online dating is a particular boon13 for those with very particular requirements. Jdate14 allows daters to filter out matches who would not consider converting to Judaism， for instance. A vastly bigger market has had dramatic results for same-sex daters in particular. In America， 70% of gay people meet their partners online.

There are problems with the modern way of love， however. Many users complain of stress when confronted with the brutal realities of the digital meat market15， and their place within it. Negative emotions about body image16 existed before the internet， but they are amplified when strangers can issue snap17 judgments on attractiveness. Digital dating has been linked to depression. The same problems that afflict other digital platforms recur in this realm， from scams18 to fake accounts： 10% of all newly created dating profiles do not belong to real people.

This new world of romance may also have unintended consequences for society. The fact that online daters have so much more choice can break down barriers： evidence suggests that the internet is boosting interracial marriages by bypassing homogenous19 social groups. But daters are also more able to choose partners like themselves. Assortative20 mating， the process whereby21 people with similar education levels and incomes pair up， already shoulders some of the blame for income inequality. Online dating may make the effect more pronounced22： education levels are displayed prominently on dating profiles in a way they would never be offline. It is not hard to imagine dating services of the future matching people by preferred traits， as determined by uploaded genomes. Dating firms also suffer from an inherent23 conflict of interest. Perfect matching would leave them bereft24 of paying customers.

The domination of online dating by a handful of firms and their algorithms is another source of worry. Dating apps do not benefit from exactly the same sort of network effects25 as other tech platforms： a person’s friends do not need to be on a specific dating site， for example. But the feedback loop26 between large pools of data， generated by ever-growing numbers of users attracted to an ever-improving product， still exists. The entry into the market of Facebook， armed with data from its 2.2bn users， will provide clues as to whether online dating will inexorably27 consolidate into fewer， larger platforms.

While you were swiping28

But even if the market does not become ever more concentrated， the process of coupling （or not） has unquestionably become more centralised. Romance used to be a distributed activity which took place in a profusion of29 bars， clubs， churches and offices; now enormous numbers of people rely on a few companies to meet their mate. That hands a small number of coders， tweaking30 the algorithms that determine who sees whom across the virtual bar， tremendous power to engineer31 mating outcomes. In authoritarian societies especially， the prospect of algorithmically arranged marriages ought to cause some disquiet. Competition offers some protection against such a possibility; so too might greater transparency over the principles used by dating apps to match people up.

Yet such concerns should not obscure the good that comes from the modern way of romance. The right partners can elevate and nourish each other. The wrong ones can ruin both their lives. Digital dating offers millions of people a more efficient way to find a good mate. That is something to love32.

互联网彻底改变了人们的工作和交流方式，从娱乐到零售，颠覆了诸多行业。但受其至深影响的很可能是大多数人所做的最重要决定——择偶。

20世纪90年代初，网恋的想法似乎异想天开，甚是可悲;如今在多地已成常态。智能手机在人们的口袋里装入了虚拟酒吧，其间单身男女可不受社会或地域制约，相互交往。全球每月至少有两亿人使用网络相亲服务。在美国，现有超过三分之一的婚姻始于网络牵手。互联网是美国人结识异性的第二大途径，正快速赶超现实生活中靠“朋友的朋友”牵线的方式。

网络相亲是对人类最私密、最重要的經历之一开展的大型社会实验。其影响刚刚初露端倪。

当哈里网遇萨莉

网上相亲与线下相亲迥然不同。在现实世界，是在家庭关系网或朋友同事圈子中觅得伴侣。结识朋友的朋友是常事。网上见面者则极有可能素不相识。因此，网络相亲提供的选择范围要大很多。对任何人来说，酒吧、合唱队或公司可能仅有几十个潜在伴侣，网上则有成千上万。

选择余地更大，加之网络交往须两厢情愿方可实现，使得网络相亲市场的效率远高于线下市场。这对有些人不利。由于男女的择偶标准相差悬殊，一些寻求异性伴侣的男士注定不能牵手。在名为“探探”的一款中文应用软件上，男士对60%所见的女士表露兴趣，而女士只对6%的男士有兴趣;这一动态意味着有5%的男士找不到合适对象。在线下相亲中，由于可选男士的范围要小得多，寻求异性伴侣的女士更有可能同线上无望的男士牵手。

但对大多数人来说，网络相亲有更好的结局。研究发现，在美国，网恋者的婚姻可能更为持久;这类夫妻表示比线下结缘的夫妻更幸福。围绕相亲应用软件的些许道德恐慌被过度渲染。鲜有证据表明，网络机会正助长不忠行为。在互联网问世之前，美国的离婚率一直攀升，此后反而回落。

对有极特殊要求的群体而言，网络相亲帮了大忙。比如，Jdate网站允许相亲人士筛除不考虑改信犹太教的匹配者。一个规模大很多的市场特别为同性约会者带来了意料不到的结果。美国有70%的同性恋人群在线上遇到伴侣。

然而，这种现代恋爱方式也存在问题。很多用户抱怨网络肉欲市场的残酷现实带给他们沉重压力，抱怨自己在其中地位低下。对自我外在形象的负面情绪在互联网出现之前就有，而当陌生人可对美丑随口评价时，这种情绪则被放大。已发现网络相亲会造成抑郁。从诈骗到虚设账号，这些困扰其他数字平台的问题也在该领域一再出现：所有新建的个人相亲资料有10%查无其人。

这片浪漫新天地也会给社会带来意想不到的结果。网络相亲者拥有大很多的选择余地，这可冲破重重藩篱：证据显示，互联网正在助推绕过同质社群的跨种族通婚。但相亲人士也更能挑选和自己共性多的伴侣。同型婚配，即学历、收入相当人士的配对程序，已被指责为造成收入不平等的部分原因。网络相亲可能让这一影响更为突出：学历以线下绝不会有的方式，在个人相亲资料的显著位置得以展示。不难想象，未来的相亲服务将按上传基因组所确定的优选特征为人们配对。婚介公司也因固有的利益冲突而遭受损失。完美的配对手段将让他们失去付费客户。

在线相亲被少数公司及其算法主导是引发人们担忧的另一缘故。相亲应用软件并未像其他技术平台那样，从同类网络效应中受益：比如，一个人的朋友们不一定会上特定的相亲网站。但是，大型数据池之间的反馈环依然存在，这是受某种不断改进的产品吸引、数量越来越多的顾客生成的。网络相亲是否会不可避免地整合为数量更少、规模更大的平台，备有22亿用户数据的脸书进入该市场，将为此提供线索。

滑屏定终身

但是，即便市场不会更集中，无论配对成功与否，这一过程都无可置疑地更为中心化。谈情说爱曾是分散的活动，在不计其数的酒吧、俱乐部、教堂和公司进行;如今有无数人依赖几家公司结识伴侣。该状况使得少数程序员具备操纵配对结果的强大能力。他们调整算法，决定了谁与谁在虚拟酒吧相遇。尤其在专制社会，算法包办婚姻的前景会令人有些不安。竞争能防范这种可能;增加相亲应用软件所用配对原则的透明度或同样可起防范作用。

然而，这些担忧不应掩盖这种现代婚恋方式所带来的益处。佳偶可彼此提升，相互滋养。错配则会毁掉各自的生活。网络相亲给千万人觅得佳偶提供了一条更高效的途径。这点颇值一爱。

（译者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖选手，单位：中国农业大学）