The criticism of Tinder seemed to be about how Tinder causes market failure when someone wants a serious relationship, but I really doubt everyone on Tinder aims to. Just assuming what every user wants or doesn’t want to do is a huge assumption because it means that the alternate dating site proposed by the author may also fail. The fact that Tinder exists and is popular is already an important indicator that, perhaps, in the future other sites may replace Tinder without having all or many users looking for serious long-term relationships. To me, making such a huge assumption has many consequences to knowing what the future may lead to. How about the author go out there and make the app that was discussed in the article, but then when reality kicks in it will likely lead to a failure. Why can I say it will fail? I can say that because most new ideas of that nature just fail in business terms. Also, the article claims to be about microeconomics, but it still had a huge aftertaste of opinion or convictions. It almost appears the author was simply giving how they believe dating should take place, which is a dangerous thing to do under and circumstance. Trying to push one belief over another is not microeconomics, but more of an ideological matter. I believe it’s dangerous to give an opinion of how something with political and social implication should happen by claiming that there is some pseudo-scientific reason when there really isn’t. Cherry picking the economic concepts that are convenient to be used in the persuasive article does not present the full picture. All of this makes me want to question whether anyone has any clue of what the future might hold because in reality nobody does, while the author claims they somehow do. The future of Tinder is not as easy as it may seem at first sight.