現代情緣網做媒

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.

互聯網徹底改變了人們的工作和交流方式，從娛樂到零售，顛覆了諸多行業。但受其至深影響的很可能是大多數人所做的最重要決定——擇偶。

20世紀90年代初，網戀的想法似乎異想天開，甚是可悲;如今在多地已成常態。智能手機在人們的口袋里裝入了虛擬酒吧，其間單身男女可不受社會或地域制約，相互交往。全球每月至少有兩億人使用網絡相親服務。在美國，現有超過三分之一的婚姻始于網絡牽手?；ヂ摼W是美國人結識異性的第二大途徑，正快速趕超現實生活中靠“朋友的朋友”牽線的方式。

網絡相親是對人類最私密、最重要的經歷之一開展的大型社會實驗。其影響剛剛初露端倪。

當哈里網遇薩莉

網上相親與線下相親迥然不同。在現實世界，是在家庭關系網或朋友同事圈子中覓得伴侶。結識朋友的朋友是常事。網上見面者則極有可能素不相識。因此，網絡相親提供的選擇范圍要大很多。對任何人來說，酒吧、合唱隊或公司可能僅有幾十個潛在伴侶，網上則有成千上萬。

選擇余地更大，加之網絡交往須兩廂情愿方可實現，使得網絡相親市場的效率遠高于線下市場。這對有些人不利。由于男女的擇偶標準相差懸殊，一些尋求異性伴侶的男士注定不能牽手。在名為“探探”的一款中文應用軟件上，男士對60%所見的女士表露興趣，而女士只對6%的男士有興趣;這一動態意味著有5%的男士找不到合適對象。在線下相親中，由于可選男士的范圍要小得多，尋求異性伴侶的女士更有可能同線上無望的男士牽手。

但對大多數人來說，網絡相親有更好的結局。研究發現，在美國，網戀者的婚姻可能更為持久;這類夫妻表示比線下結緣的夫妻更幸福。圍繞相親應用軟件的些許道德恐慌被過度渲染。鮮有證據表明，網絡機會正助長不忠行為。在互聯網問世之前，美國的離婚率一直攀升，此后反而回落。

對有極特殊要求的群體而言，網絡相親幫了大忙。比如，Jdate網站允許相親人士篩除不考慮改信猶太教的匹配者。一個規模大很多的市場特別為同性約會者帶來了意料不到的結果。美國有70%的同性戀人群在線上遇到伴侶。

然而，這種現代戀愛方式也存在問題。很多用戶抱怨網絡肉欲市場的殘酷現實帶給他們沉重壓力，抱怨自己在其中地位低下。對自我外在形象的負面情緒在互聯網出現之前就有，而當陌生人可對美丑隨口評價時，這種情緒則被放大。已發現網絡相親會造成抑郁。從詐騙到虛設賬號，這些困擾其他數字平臺的問題也在該領域一再出現：所有新建的個人相親資料有10%查無其人。

這片浪漫新天地也會給社會帶來意想不到的結果。網絡相親者擁有大很多的選擇余地，這可沖破重重藩籬：證據顯示，互聯網正在助推繞過同質社群的跨種族通婚。但相親人士也更能挑選和自己共性多的伴侶。同型婚配，即學歷、收入相當人士的配對程序，已被指責為造成收入不平等的部分原因。網絡相親可能讓這一影響更為突出：學歷以線下絕不會有的方式，在個人相親資料的顯著位置得以展示。不難想象，未來的相親服務將按上傳基因組所確定的優選特征為人們配對?；榻楣疽惨蚬逃械睦鏇_突而遭受損失。完美的配對手段將讓他們失去付費客戶。

在線相親被少數公司及其算法主導是引發人們擔憂的另一緣故。相親應用軟件并未像其他技術平臺那樣，從同類網絡效應中受益：比如，一個人的朋友們不一定會上特定的相親網站。但是，大型數據池之間的反饋環依然存在，這是受某種不斷改進的產品吸引、數量越來越多的顧客生成的。網絡相親是否會不可避免地整合為數量更少、規模更大的平臺，備有22億用戶數據的臉書進入該市場，將為此提供線索。

滑屏定終身

但是，即便市場不會更集中，無論配對成功與否，這一過程都無可置疑地更為中心化。談情說愛曾是分散的活動，在不計其數的酒吧、俱樂部、教堂和公司進行;如今有無數人依賴幾家公司結識伴侶。該狀況使得少數程序員具備操縱配對結果的強大能力。他們調整算法，決定了誰與誰在虛擬酒吧相遇。尤其在專制社會，算法包辦婚姻的前景會令人有些不安。競爭能防范這種可能;增加相親應用軟件所用配對原則的透明度或同樣可起防范作用。

然而，這些擔憂不應掩蓋這種現代婚戀方式所帶來的益處。佳偶可彼此提升，相互滋養。錯配則會毀掉各自的生活。網絡相親給千萬人覓得佳偶提供了一條更高效的途徑。這點頗值一愛。

（譯者為“《英語世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎選手，單位：中國農業大學）