Digital Enclaves or Inclusive Communities? The Societal and Legal Implications of Match Group’s Niche Dating Portfolio

David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 11, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Executive Summary

This report examines the societal and legal implications of niche dating applications. These apps are operated by Match Group’s subsidiary, Affinity Apps, LLC. The portfolio includes platforms like Chispa (Latino), BLK (Black), and Upward (Christian). A violent crime facilitated through the Chispa app prompted this analysis.¹ It investigates whether these demographically-targeted platforms contribute to the exclusion of non-denominational white individuals from the dating pool.

The core finding is that these niche applications are not a primary driver of exclusion against the majority demographic. Instead, they are a market response to pre-existing exclusionary dynamics on mainstream dating platforms. These dynamics and racial hierarchies are well-documented. They systematically privilege white users and disadvantage certain minority groups.² These apps function as digital enclaves. They provide necessary and affirming spaces for communities that face discrimination elsewhere.³

However, the report also finds that the architecture of these platforms creates powerful feedback loops. This architecture relies on user-controlled and algorithmic filtering. These loops risk amplifying human biases and reinforcing social segregation.⁴ This business model is predicated on sorting users by protected characteristics like race and religion. This places Match Group in a precarious legal position. This is particularly true as the debate over whether dating apps constitute “places of public accommodation” under anti-discrimination law evolves.⁵

The report provides key recommendations for both Match Group and policymakers. It advises Match Group to enhance user safety, increase algorithmic transparency, and conduct an ethical review of its filtering policies. It urges policymakers to resolve the legal ambiguity surrounding digital public accommodations. They should also develop frameworks for algorithmic accountability. This would hold platform companies responsible for the discriminatory outcomes of their technology.

The report concludes that the central challenge is not a phantom threat of exclusion. It is about balancing the human need for affinity with the broader societal goal of integration.

I. Introduction: A Crime in Salem and the Questions It Unearths

On May 23, 2025, news reports from Salem, Oregon, detailed a violent crime. The incident served as a stark reminder of the risks in the digital search for human connection.⁶

Authorities arrested two women: 20-year-old Julia Dell Yepez and 20-year-old Alexa Montano Corral. They faced a battery of charges, including attempted murder, first-degree assault, and second-degree kidnapping.⁷ According to the Benton County Sheriff’s Office, the suspects allegedly used Chispa, a dating app for the Latino community. They used it to lure a 17-year-old man into a meeting with the intent of robbing him.⁶

The encounter ended with the victim being shot. He was hospitalized but is expected to survive.⁷ The fact that a niche, community-focused dating app was allegedly used as a tool for targeted violence immediately elevates this incident beyond a local crime story. It prompts a deeper inquiry into the very nature of such platforms.⁶

This incident serves as a catalyst for a much deeper inquiry into the architecture of modern dating. The platform at the center of the crime was Chispa. Chispa is not a general-purpose application. It is one of several niche platforms operated by Affinity Apps, LLC, a subsidiary of the online dating behemoth Match Group, Inc..⁸ This portfolio includes not only Chispa for Latinos but also BLK for Black singles, Upward for Christians, Yuzu for the Asian community, and Salams for Muslims.⁸

The Salem crime, therefore, forces a critical examination of the very premise of these platforms.

• Are these apps merely providing safe, culturally-attuned spaces for communities to connect?
• Or do they, by their design, contribute to broader social fragmentation?
• Do they raise complex legal questions of discrimination?
• Do they, as the initial query posits, inadvertently exclude certain demographics from the digital dating landscape?

For this report, “non-denominational white individuals” refers to people who identify racially as white and do not adhere to a specific religious faith. This clarification is crucial. The existence of dating apps targeting specific religious and ethnic groups directly relates to the core question. Do those who fall outside these targeted categories face exclusion?

This report’s central thesis is direct. These niche applications are not a primary driver of exclusion against the majority demographic. Instead, they are largely a market response to pre-existing exclusionary dynamics on mainstream dating sites.

The crime in Salem serves as a microcosm of the inherent risks. The very features designed to create a trusted community space can be weaponized. A niche platform implies cultural insularity. This is intended to foster safety and shared identity. Paradoxically, this can lower a user’s guard. This creates a vulnerability that malicious actors can exploit. They adopt the community’s signifiers to perpetrate harm.⁹ This incident is not just a crime that occurred on an app. It is a potential exploitation of the app’s core premise, transforming a community-building tool into a vector for targeted crime.

II. The Modern Dating Conglomerate: Deconstructing Match Group and “Affinity Apps, LLC”

To understand the societal impact of these niche applications, we must first analyze their corporate structure and strategic purpose. This requires a precise identification of the controlling entity, Affinity Apps, LLC. It also requires an analysis of its role within the vast empire of its parent company, Match Group, Inc.

Clarifying “Affinity”: A Necessary Disambiguation

The name “Affinity” creates significant potential confusion. Numerous, entirely unrelated businesses use it. These companies include:

• Affinity by Serif: A popular suite of professional creative software acquired by Canva in March 2024.¹⁰
• Affinity.co: A relationship intelligence and CRM platform for industries like private equity.¹¹
• Various Financial Firms: Multiple SEC-registered entities such as Affinity Investment Advisors, LLC.¹²
• Affinity Gaming: A casino and entertainment company.¹³

It is crucial to state that these entities are unrelated to this report’s subject. The entity in question is Affinity Apps, LLC. It is a legal entity registered in Dallas, Texas. It operates as a subsidiary of Match Group, Inc., and is the legal owner of the dating apps discussed.⁸

Match Group’s Market Dominance and Portfolio Strategy

Affinity Apps, LLC does not operate in a vacuum. It is a cog in the machinery of the largest player in the global online dating market.

Match Group, Inc. is a publicly traded S&P 500 component. Its market capitalization is in the tens of billions of dollars. Its annual revenues exceed $3 billion.¹⁴ Its portfolio is a sprawling collection of the world’s most recognizable dating brands, including Tinder, Hinge, and OkCupid.¹⁴

The company’s stated mission is sweepingly universalist:

…to “create meaningful connections for every single person worldwide” and to serve “all parts of society globally, sparking connections across the spectrum of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, background, and relationship goals”.¹⁵

With over 750 million app downloads and products available in more than 40 languages, its reach is immense.¹⁵

The Strategic Role of Affinity Apps, LLC

The portfolio managed by Affinity Apps, LLC is a deliberate market segmentation strategy. This strategy operates in parallel with Match Group’s universalist public mission.

The parent company champions a broad-market approach with apps like Tinder. In contrast, this subsidiary is purpose-built. It captures specific, high-value demographic segments. These segments may feel alienated or underserved by mainstream platforms.

The 2017 launch of Chispa is a textbook example. Match Group did not build the app from scratch. Instead, it partnered with Univision Communications Inc. (UCI).¹⁶ This partnership leveraged the media giant’s deep insights into the U.S. Hispanic market. The goal was to target the approximately 13 million single Latinos in the country at that time.¹⁶

This approach allows Match Group to cater directly to homogamy. Homogamy is the powerful sociological tendency for people to seek partners with similar backgrounds. Meanwhile, the parent company’s brand remains positioned as a facilitator of all connection types.

This corporate structure is a strategic brand architecture. Match Group uses the generic legal name “Affinity Apps, LLC.” This allows it to market each application as a distinct, community-driven brand. These brands (BLK, Chispa, Upward, Yuzu, Salams) appear organic and tailored to their target audiences. This obscures the centralized control and unified profit motive of the parent conglomerate.

This structure creates a “brand moat,” a form of strategic distancing. For example, consider if BLK faces public criticism for social segregation. Or imagine if Chispa is embroiled in a safety scandal. The reputational damage is largely contained to that specific brand. The parent company, Match Group, remains insulated. Its primary corporate identity as a universal connector remains intact.¹⁵

This is a sophisticated risk management strategy. It allows the company to publicly champion diversity and inclusion. At the same time, it builds and profits from the social dynamics of self-selection. These dynamics—based on ethnicity, race, and religion—are very real and sometimes fraught.

This strategic brand architecture is brought to life through the specific features and user experiences of each application. To understand their real-world impact, we must now move from the corporate level to a granular analysis of the five key platforms in the Affinity Apps portfolio.

Table 1: Niche Dating App Portfolio Overview

App Name	Target Demographic	Stated Mission/Tagline	Key Features
BLK	Black singles	“The #1 Dating app made for Black Singles”¹⁷	Self-expression stickers (e.g., “Black Biz Owner,” “Caribbean Descent”) to signal specific identities within the Black community.¹⁸
Chispa	Latino/a singles	“The new app to connect, chat and meet with Latinos”¹⁹	Bilingual interface; culturally-based questions to facilitate connection based on shared heritage.¹⁶
Upward	Christian singles	“To create a faith-based community for single Christian men and women”²⁰	Profile includes a “faith statement”; explicitly inclusive of various denominations (e.g., Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal).⁵
Yuzu	Asian community	“Your Social Playground & Dating App for Authentic Asian Connections”²¹	Features distinct “social” and “dating” modes; community hubs for shared interests like K-pop, anime, and entrepreneurship.²²
Salams	Muslim singles	“Trusted halal app for meaningful Muslim dating, Islamic marriage, friendship”²³	Focuses on “halal” matching; in-depth religious profile details such as sect, prayer levels, and family expectations (e.g., wali).²³

III. The Architecture of Niche Connection: A Profile of Five Platforms

Moving from corporate strategy to user-level functionality reveals how these platforms operate in practice. An analysis of their features and a synthesis of user reviews from forums like Reddit provide a granular view of their performance, successes, and significant shortcomings.

Table 2: Summary of User Feedback for Affinity Apps Platforms

App	Functionality Highlights	Positive User Feedback	Common Complaints & Negative Feedback
BLK	Swipe-based interface with “self-expression stickers” to signal identity (e.g., “Caribbean Descent,” “Poly”).¹⁸	Reports of meeting long-term partners and fiancés.²⁴	**Prevalence of low-quality profiles, scammers, and users promoting paid content.**²⁴ Presence of non-Black users, raising concerns of fetishization.²⁵
Chispa	Simple, fast signup process (SMS or Facebook).²⁶ Bilingual interface.¹⁶ Basic filters (age, location).²⁶	Straightforward and easy to use for connecting with other Latinos.¹⁹	**Significant safety concerns, including robbery setups mirroring the Salem crime.**²⁷ High number of incomplete or low-effort profiles.²⁶
Upward	Profile includes a **”faith statement.”**⁵ Welcomes a wide range of Christian denominations.⁵	Numerous testimonials of users meeting spouses and fiancés.²⁸	Often described as “Tinder for Christians” with many “lukewarm” or non-Christian users.²⁸ Reports of **sophisticated blackmail scams.**²⁸ Aggressive “pay-to-play” subscription model.²⁹
Yuzu	**Dual “social” and “dating” modes.**²² Community hubs for shared interests (K-pop, anime).²¹ Open to all ethnicities.²²	Acknowledged for its mission to create an Asian-centric community space.²²	Marketing perceived as “cringey” and stereotypical.³⁰ **Heavily populated by non-Asian users, particularly white men, undermining its purpose.**³⁰ Common reports of scammers and fake profiles.³¹
Salams	Focus on “halal” matching for marriage.²³ Highly detailed religious profiles (sect, prayer levels).³² Privacy features like a screenshot stopper.²³	Previously valued as a strong community resource for finding a spouse.³³	**Post-acquisition update removed key free features (like filtering by sect), rendering it unusable for many.**³³ Widespread user sentiment that Match Group turned it into a “cash-grab” and “hookup app.”³³

BLK (For Black Singles)

Functionality

BLK operates on the familiar swipe-based interface popularized by Tinder.¹⁸ Its key differentiating feature is the ability for users to add “self-expression stickers” to their profiles. These tags, like “Black Biz Owner” and “Caribbean Descent,” allow for nuanced signaling of identity within the broader Black community.¹⁸

User Experience

User feedback on platforms like Reddit presents a deeply polarized picture. Some users report clear success stories, having met their long-term partners on the app.²⁴

However, there is a significant volume of negative reviews. A recurring complaint is the prevalence of low-quality profiles.²⁴ Many users report encountering a high number of scammers. They also see profiles promoting paid OnlyFans content. Others appear to use the app solely to gain Instagram followers.²⁴ A particularly salient frustration for Black users is the presence of non-Black individuals on the platform. Some perceive this as defeating the purpose of a dedicated space and raising concerns about racial fetishization.²⁵

Chispa (For Latino/a Singles)

Functionality

Chispa prioritizes ease of entry with a simple signup process that can be completed in under three minutes.²⁶ Its matchmaking functionality is described as “superficial.” It relies primarily on basic filters like location and age, rather than deeper compatibility metrics.²⁶ The app is fully bilingual.¹⁶

User Experience

Safety and profile authenticity are major concerns for Chispa users. The Salem shooting represents the most extreme manifestation of these risks, but it is not an isolated concern.

Users on Reddit describe encounters that mirror a robbery setup. A match quickly pushes for an in-person meeting at a specific location. Then, the match unmatches and disappears from the app. This leaves the user feeling they narrowly avoided a dangerous situation.²⁷ The platform is also criticized for having a high number of incomplete or low-effort profiles.²⁶

Upward (For Christian Singles)

Functionality

Upward is designed to connect users based on shared religious faith. Profile creation prompts users to complete a “faith statement” to articulate their beliefs.⁵ The platform is intentionally ecumenical, welcoming users from a wide range of Christian denominations.⁵

User Experience

Experiences on Upward are mixed. There are numerous testimonials from users who have met fiancés and spouses.²⁸ However, a common critique is that the app is little more than “Tinder repackaged for Christians.” Its user base includes many “lukewarm” Christians. It even includes non-believers who simply use it as another dating pool.²⁸

More alarmingly, users report encountering sophisticated scams, including blackmail attempts.²⁸ The app’s business model also draws criticism. Many users describe it as “pay to play” and suspect the algorithm intentionally withholds matches to incentivize premium subscriptions.²⁹

Yuzu (For the Asian Community)

Functionality

Launched in early 2024, Yuzu is one of the newest additions to the Affinity Apps portfolio.²² It has a unique dual-mode functionality, allowing users to switch between a “social” mode for friends and a “dating” mode for romance.²² The app’s branding is geared toward shared cultural touchstones like K-pop and anime.²¹ While tailored for the Asian community, its official policy welcomes users of all backgrounds.²²

User Experience

Early user reception has been largely critical. Many find the marketing to be “cringey” and reliant on shallow stereotypes.³⁰ A primary complaint is that the app is heavily populated by non-Asian users. This is particularly true for white men. This influx undermines the app’s stated purpose as a community-centric platform.³⁰ Reports of scammers and fake profiles are also common.³¹

Salams (Formerly Minder, for Muslim Singles)

Functionality

Salams is explicitly focused on facilitating “halal” (permissible in Islamic law) connections with the ultimate goal of marriage.²³ Its profiles are the most detailed of the five apps. Users can specify their sect, prayer levels, and family expectations.³² It also incorporates privacy-enhancing features like a screenshot stopper.²³

User Experience

The acquisition of Salams by Match Group has been a significant point of contention and distrust among its user base. Users on Reddit report that a major update following the acquisition fundamentally degraded the app’s utility.³³

Key features were allegedly removed from the free version. For example, the ability to set “dealbreakers” to filter by sect was placed behind a premium paywall. This rendered the app unusable for many who consider such criteria non-negotiable.³³ This has led to accusations that the new, non-Muslim corporate owners have turned a valued community resource into a “scummy,” “cash-grab” platform.³³

IV. The Sociology of the Swipe: Racial Preference, Homophily, and Exclusion in Digital Spaces

We must evaluate the central premise of the user’s query within the rigorous framework of sociological research. The premise is that niche dating apps may be excluding non-denominational white individuals. Decades of study reveal a consistent set of social dynamics that shape partner selection. This research indicates that the query’s premise is a fundamental misreading of the prevailing forces at play.

Introducing Key Concepts

To analyze the digital dating market, it is essential to define three core sociological concepts.

Assortative Mating: The well-established principle that individuals tend to select mates who are similar to themselves across characteristics like education, religion, and race.³⁴

Racial Homophily: A specific form of assortative mating. It is the intrinsic tendency of individuals to associate with and form relationships with others of the same race. Research shows this “dominates mate-searching behavior” on dating sites.³⁵

Racial Hierarchy: The concept that not all racial groups are perceived as equally desirable within the competitive dating market. Academic literature demonstrates a clear hierarchy that systematically privileges whiteness.²

The Prevailing Dynamic: The Privileging of Whiteness

An extensive body of empirical research directly contradicts the notion that white individuals are being excluded from the online dating pool. The opposite is true. The system is structured in a way that confers a distinct advantage to them.

• Multiple studies have found that white users are the most preferred demographic. They are more likely to be messaged and to receive replies than their non-white counterparts.²
• Conversely, specific minority groups face systemic exclusion. Research consistently identifies Black women and Asian men as the least desired groups in the online dating market.³⁶
• This racial hierarchy is so deeply entrenched that it often overrides other markers of status. A landmark study revealed a powerful dynamic. White men and women with a college degree are more likely to contact white daters without a college degree. They are less likely to engage with Black daters with a college degree.³⁷

Niche Apps as a Response to Systemic Exclusion

This sociological context provides the crucial lens to understand the Affinity Apps portfolio. The existence of apps like BLK, Yuzu, and Salams is not a cause of exclusion for white individuals. They are a direct effect. They are a rational market response to the systemic exclusion that minorities experience on mainstream platforms.

These platforms function as digital enclaves. They are created to provide a more welcoming and less discriminatory environment for their target communities. The demand for these apps is driven by a desire to connect with partners who share a common cultural understanding. Critically, it is also a desire to evade the rejection, harassment, and racial fetishization that are well-documented experiences for minorities on general-market apps.³

We can best understand this phenomenon through the logic of market economics and consumer choice, not through the lens of discrimination. Match Group is a profit-driven corporation. It is not making a political statement with its niche portfolio. It is identifying and capitalizing on a significant market failure.

Mainstream applications have failed to adequately serve the needs of specific consumer segments. For example, Black women seeking partners who value them, or marriage-minded Muslims seeking partners who adhere to specific religious criteria. Affinity Apps, LLC is the corporate vehicle created to capture this vast, unmet demand.

In market terms, the “exclusion” of a white, non-denominational user from an app like BLK is functionally equivalent. It is like the “exclusion” of a meat-eater from a vegan restaurant. It is a consequence of product-market fit and consumer self-selection.

V. The Algorithm as Architect: How Filtering Mechanisms Shape the Modern Dating Pool

A powerful set of technological tools—filtering mechanisms—enables and accelerates the social segmentation in modern dating. These tools are the architectural foundation upon which niche platforms are built. They present a complex duality. They act as instruments of empowerment and as potential vectors for reinforcing prejudice.

Explicit vs. Implicit Filtering

Two primary types of filtering shape the user experience on dating apps:

• Explicit Filters: These are the settings users can directly control to narrow their pool of potential matches. These commonly include age, distance, and religion. More controversially, many apps, including Hinge and OkCupid, also allow users to filter by race and ethnicity.³⁸ In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter movement, some platforms removed their ethnicity filters. The LGBTQ+ app Grindr was a notable example. This action was a stated effort to combat racism and highlighted the feature’s contentious nature.³
• Implicit Filtering (Collaborative Filtering): This is a more subtle but equally powerful algorithmic process. The platform’s recommender system analyzes a user’s behavior—who they swipe on, message, or ignore. It then compares this behavior to that of “similar” users. Over time, the algorithm learns the user’s unstated preferences.³⁹ Consider an app that lacks an explicit ethnicity filter. If a user consistently shows a pattern of racial homophily, the algorithm will detect it. The algorithm will then begin to predominantly show that user profiles from the same racial background.³⁹

The Duality of Filters: Empowerment vs. Prejudice

The ethical debate surrounding these filters stems from their dual-use nature. The same tool can serve radically different social functions depending on the positionality of the user.

• As a Tool of Empowerment: For individuals from marginalized communities, filters can be an indispensable tool for self-preservation. A devout Muslim user can use the detailed filters on Salams to efficiently find compatible matches.³² Similarly, a South Asian user can use an ethnicity filter to connect with individuals who understand their cultural background.⁴⁰ In this context, the filter is a means of finding belonging and avoiding the emotional labor of explaining one’s identity to outsiders.³
• As a Tool of Prejudice: When wielded by a user from a dominant group, the same ethnicity filter can become a tool for enacting racial prejudice. It allows a user to erase entire demographic groups from their dating pool with a single click. This reinforces the systemic racial hierarchies observed in sociological data.²

These systems have a profound and perhaps insidious long-term effect. They do not merely reflect existing human biases. They create powerful feedback loops that amplify and harden those biases over time.

A user’s mild preference can be interpreted by an algorithm as a hard rule. The algorithm, optimized for engagement, will learn this preference. To increase the probability of a right swipe, it will show the user a higher proportion of same-race profiles. As the user’s choice set becomes more homogenous, their behavioral data reinforces the algorithm’s initial conclusion. A “soft” human preference is thus translated into a “hard” digital reality.

This process systematically reduces the potential for serendipitous cross-racial encounters. The algorithm does not just mirror society; it risks calcifying its divisions.⁴ This concern is not merely theoretical. A researcher from the dating app Breeze admitted their algorithm could be “exacerbating existing biases.” He explained it was learning from a user base that was already strongly biased towards itself.⁴

VI. The Legal Boundaries of Preference: Discrimination, Public Accommodation, and Corporate Responsibility

Match Group’s strategy of operating a portfolio of demographically-focused dating apps is commercially astute. However, it also places the company at the epicenter of a complex and evolving legal landscape. The entire business model of Affinity Apps, LLC rests on sorting users by protected characteristics. This creates a significant area of legal risk, particularly concerning the unsettled question of whether dating apps constitute places of public accommodation.

The Public Accommodation Debate

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is at the heart of the legal issue. It prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of “public accommodation”.⁴¹ Congress originally conceived the statute for physical spaces like stores and restaurants. Its application to the digital realm remains a contentious legal question.

U.S. federal courts are currently split on the issue.

• Some circuits, like the Ninth, hold that the ADA applies only if a digital service has a “nexus” to a physical place.
• Other circuits, including the First and Seventh, have held that a website or app can be a place of public accommodation in its own right.⁴¹

Critics of dating app filters have seized upon this latter interpretation. They argue that online dating platforms function as a modern form of public accommodation. Therefore, they should be prohibited from building tools that facilitate racial discrimination.⁴²

The Defense: Personal Preference vs. Corporate Facilitation

Dating companies proffer a primary defense. They argue their platforms are merely tools that empower individual choice. They argue that preferences for romantic partners are protected forms of speech and association.³

However, this defense becomes tenuous when a corporation like Match Group moves beyond passively allowing user choice. The company systematically builds, markets, and profits from products predicated on sorting users by protected classes. The argument shifts from one of individual preference to one of corporate facilitation of segregation.

International Precedent: The Breeze Decision

A crucial development in this area comes from outside the United States. In 2023, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights issued a decision concerning Breeze, a Dutch dating app.

The Institute is a non-binding but influential body. It concluded that Breeze had a legal responsibility to prevent discriminatory outcomes from its matching algorithm. The algorithm was suspected of discriminating against dark-skinned users.⁴³ This decision is significant. It shifts legal responsibility away from individual users and onto the corporate entity that designs the system.

Other Legal Challenges

The core mechanics of dating apps have faced legal scrutiny on other fronts. A notable example is the class-action lawsuit filed against Bumble in California. The suit alleged that the app’s “women message first” feature constituted gender discrimination. The case was settled in 2022 for $3.26 million. While Bumble did not admit guilt, the settlement demonstrates that platform design choices are not immune to legal challenges.⁴⁴

This legal context reveals the precarious position of Match Group’s Affinity Apps portfolio. On a mainstream app like Tinder, discrimination can be framed as a byproduct of user choices. On an app like BLK, however, sorting by race is not a byproduct; it is the product itself. This makes Match Group uniquely vulnerable to a legal challenge arguing that it is actively building and profiting from a discriminatory service.

VII. Long-Term Implications and Strategic Recommendations

The proliferation of niche dating applications carries profound long-term implications for social cohesion, demographic trends, and corporate governance. Synthesizing the preceding analysis allows for the projection of future impacts and the formulation of strategic recommendations.

Demographic and Social Impact

The societal impact of these platforms is fundamentally dualistic. On one hand, they have the potential to deepen social segregation. They can create digital enclaves. These enclaves reduce the likelihood of serendipitous, cross-group interactions. Such interactions often lead to interracial and interfaith relationships. Sociologists often view these relationships as a key metric of social integration.⁴⁵

On the other hand, these platforms provide vital and necessary spaces for communities that face systemic discrimination. For a Black woman tired of being ignored on mainstream apps or a Muslim man seeking a partner who shares his faith, BLK and Salams are not tools of segregation. They are instruments of community survival and cultural affirmation.⁴⁰

Recommendations for Match Group

Given its market dominance and the risks associated with its portfolio, Match Group should proactively adopt a series of strategic measures:

• Enhance User Safety and Trust: The Salem incident and pervasive user complaints about scams represent a critical failure of trust. Match Group must invest significantly more resources in proactive safety measures. This should include more robust identity verification and better cooperation with law enforcement.⁴⁶ Implementing these measures would not only mitigate legal risk but also rebuild user trust, which is essential for long-term platform viability.
• Increase Algorithmic Transparency and User Control: Match Group should increase transparency to mitigate the algorithmic amplification of bias. This could involve giving users simple explanations for why they see certain profiles. More importantly, it should give them explicit controls to intentionally introduce more diversity into their recommendation feed.⁴⁷ This would give users the power to override the algorithm’s tendency to create homogenous feedback loops and improve user agency.
• Conduct a Comprehensive Ethical Review of Filtering Policies: The company should undertake a thorough ethical review of its filtering tools. This might involve removing broad ethnicity filters from its mainstream applications while retaining them on niche apps where they serve a community-building function. The immediate benefit would be a demonstrable commitment to ethical design, preempting potential regulatory action.

Recommendations for Policymakers

The challenges posed by these platforms extend beyond a single company and require a forward-looking regulatory response:

• Resolve the “Public Accommodation” Legal Ambiguity: The current circuit split regarding the ADA’s application to digital spaces creates legal uncertainty. Congress or the Supreme Court must provide a clear, uniform legal standard for whether digital platforms qualify as places of public accommodation.⁴¹ This would provide critical clarity for the industry and ensure consistent application of civil rights laws.
• Develop Frameworks for Algorithmic Accountability: U.S. regulators should look to the European precedent set by the Breeze decision.⁴³ They should begin developing legal frameworks for algorithmic accountability. Such frameworks would hold companies responsible for the systemic discriminatory outcomes of their algorithms, not just their intent. This approach shifts the regulatory focus. It moves away from the impossible task of policing individual user preferences. Instead, it focuses on the manageable task of regulating the corporate architecture that shapes those choices at scale.

VIII. Limitations of This Analysis

While this report provides a comprehensive overview, it is important to acknowledge several inherent limitations that shape its conclusions.

• Reliance on Publicly Available Data: The analysis is based on publicly accessible information. A significant portion of the data on platform mechanics is proprietary. For example, the precise workings of matching algorithms are not available for public scrutiny. This opacity limits the depth of technical analysis regarding algorithmic bias.⁴⁸
• Anecdotal Nature of User Reviews: The synthesis of user experiences relies heavily on reviews from public forums like Reddit. These sources are invaluable for capturing authentic user sentiment. They also help identify recurring issues like scams. However, they are not a substitute for rigorous, large-scale user surveys.⁴⁹
• Evolving Legal and Technological Landscape: The legal framework surrounding digital platforms is in a state of flux. Court rulings and regulatory actions are constantly evolving. This means the legal analysis presented here is a snapshot in time.⁴¹ Similarly, the technology of dating apps is rapidly advancing, which may introduce new challenges not fully captured in this report.⁵⁰
• Potential for Biased Research: Some academic studies on online dating may have limitations, such as small sample sizes or potential conflicts of interest. A study sponsored by a dating company, for instance, could be viewed with skepticism.⁵¹

IX. Areas for Future Research

Building upon the limitations identified, several avenues for future research are essential to deepen our understanding of this complex topic:

• Algorithmic Audits: We critically need independent, third-party audits of the matching algorithms used by major dating platforms. Such research would provide empirical data on the extent to which these systems perpetuate or mitigate biases.
• Large-Scale Quantitative User Surveys: To move beyond this report’s anecdotal evidence, researchers must conduct large-scale, methodologically sound surveys. These surveys should cover users across both mainstream and niche platforms to quantify user satisfaction and experiences with discrimination.
• Longitudinal Demographic Studies: The long-term societal impact of niche dating apps on assortative mating and social segregation remains largely theoretical. Longitudinal studies that track relationship formation patterns over many years are needed to determine whether these platforms are significantly altering demographic trends.
• Comparative International Legal Analysis: A comparative study of how different legal jurisdictions are approaching the regulation of digital discrimination on platforms would provide valuable insights for policymakers.

X. Conclusion: Re-evaluating Exclusion in the Digital Age

This investigation’s comprehensive analysis leads to a definitive conclusion. Niche dating apps operated by Affinity Apps, LLC do not contribute to the exclusion of non-denominational white individuals from the dating pool. The evidence does not support the initial premise.

To the contrary, the digital dating landscape is characterized by a persistent racial hierarchy. This hierarchy systematically benefits white users. It also disadvantages certain minority groups, particularly Black women and Asian men.

The rise of niche applications like BLK, Chispa, and Salams is a direct, market-driven reaction to this reality. These platforms are not instruments of exclusion against the majority demographic. They are digital enclaves. Communities seeking refuge from the exclusion they face elsewhere created them. They represent a search for affinity and safety in a digital world that is often unwelcoming.

However, to conclude that these apps are simply benign community-building tools would be to ignore their profound complexities. This report demonstrated that their architecture creates technological feedback loops. This architecture relies on explicit and implicit filtering. These loops risk amplifying human biases and hardening social boundaries. This could lead to a more fragmented and segregated society.

The Affinity Apps portfolio illuminates a central challenge. This challenge is not about protecting a dominant demographic from a phantom threat of exclusion. Instead, it is about navigating the tension between two vital social goods. First is the human need for affinity and community, which these apps serve. Second is the broader societal goal of integration and equality, which they may inadvertently undermine.

How platform designers, corporate leaders, and legal regulators confront this challenge will define the future of digital connection. They must work to build a digital society that balances both goods.

---

Works Cited

1. Louallen, D. “Dating app meetup leads to shooting, arrests in Oregon: Police.” South Central Illinois’ News, Sports and Weather Station. May 23, 2025. https://southernillinoisnow.com/2025/05/23/dating-app-meetup-leads-to-shooting-arrests-in-oregon-police/
2. Arranz Aldana, A. & Salazar, L. “Racial preferences in dating apps: an experimental approach.” The History of the Family. Vol. 29, No. 4. May 14, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1081602X.2024.2352547
3. University of Iowa College of Law. “Discrimination in Private Life.” April 2024. https://law.uiowa.edu/sites/law.uiowa.edu/files/2024-04/Discrimination%20in%20Private%20Life.docx
4. Smith, S. “‘I went up against the algorithm to find out’: When Serena Smith rejoined dating apps after a break-up, she got vanishingly few matches — that is, until she changed her race to ‘white’.” Cosmopolitan UK. July 25, 2025. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/a65422208/dating-apps-race-algorithm/
5. Google Play Store. “Upward: Christian Dating App.” Accessed October 2025. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details/Upward_Christian_Dating_App?id=com.affinityapps.twozerofour&hl=en_SG
6. DePaola, A. “Suspects used dating app to lure man before shooting him, police say.” KGW.com. May 22, 2025. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/suspect-arrested-corvallis-man-shot-inside-car/283-6eab111d-5edf-4c6b-8819-ab3e124ba811
7. KOIN 6. “2 women arrested in dating app shooting.” YouTube. May 23, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUtGXGjUhpE
8. Match Group. “Information for Law Enforcement.” Accessed October 2025. https://faq.lert.matchgroup.com/en/usbrands
9. Nolan, S. “Yuzu: New Match Group App for the Asian Community.” Global Dating Insights. February 28, 2024. https://www.globaldatinginsights.com/news/yuzu-new-match-group-app-for-the-asian-community/
10. Canva. “A message to our amazing Affinity community.” March 26, 2024. [https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/press/newsroom/canva-statement/#:~:text=As%20of%20today%20(26%20March,suite%20of%20professional%20creative%20software](https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/press/newsroom/canva-statement/#:~:text=As%20of%20today%20(26%20March,suite%20of%20professional%20creative%20software).
11. Affinity.co. “Leadership.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.affinity.co/company/leadership
12. Fintel.io. “Affinity Investment Advisors, Llc Portfolio Holdings.” Accessed October 2025. https://fintel.io/i/affinity-investment-advisors-llc
13. Affinity Gaming. “Senior Management Executive Officers.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.affinitygaming.com/sr-management-executive-officers/
14. Wikipedia. “Match Group.” Last updated 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
15. Match Group. “About.” Accessed October 2025. https://mtch.com/
16. TelevisaUnivision. “Match Group and Univision Communications Inc Launch New Free Dating App for Latino Singles, Chispa.” December 19, 2017. https://corporate.televisaunivision.com/press/2017/12/19/match-group-univision-communications-inc-launch-new-free-dating-app-latino-singles-chispa/
17. Apple App Store. “BLK – Black Singles Dating App.” Accessed October 2025. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blk-black-singles-dating-app/id1253586891
18. Mozilla Foundation. “Privacy Not Included: BLK.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/blk/
19. Chispa. “The new app to connect, chat and meet with Latinos.” Accessed October 2025. https://chispa-app.com/
20. Upward. “About Upward.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.appupward.com/about
21. Google Play Store. “Yuzu: Asian Dating, Friendship.” Accessed October 2025. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.affinityapps.yuzu
22. Yuzu. “Community Connections.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.meetyuzu.com/
23. Google Play Store. “Salams: Halal Muslim Marriage.” Accessed October 2025. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.minderapps.minder
24. Reddit. Various user threads on r/blackmen and r/blackladies. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmen/comments/1lzadem/have_any_of_yall_used_the_blk_app/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/blackladies/comments/urv9rg/tell_me_your_blk_experiences/
25. Reddit. User thread on r/BlackLGBT. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackLGBT/comments/1j28wgt/nonblack_people_on_blk/
26. Top10.com. “Chispa Dating Site Review (2025).” 2025. https://www.top10.com/dating/reviews/chispa
27. Reddit. User thread on r/OnlineDating. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/OnlineDating/comments/13dgdiy/chispa_app_scam_possible_set_up/
28. Reddit. Various user threads on r/ChristianDating. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianDating/comments/10tw19k/upward_dating/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianDating/comments/1btmegb/upward_app_experience/
29. Reddit. User thread on r/ChristianDating. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianDating/comments/1ae08wx/how_does_the_upward_dating_app_work/
30. Reddit. User thread on r/asian. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/asian/comments/1cvsv34/yuzu/
31. Reddit. User thread on r/OnlineDating. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/OnlineDating/comments/1hdq8vk/thoughts_on_yuzu_and_tantan/
32. Salams. “Say ‘Salams’ to Profile Cards.” 2023. https://www.salams.app/blog/say-salams-to-profile-cards
33. Reddit. Various user threads on r/MuslimLounge and r/progressive_islam. Accessed October 2025. https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimLounge/comments/1j6feeu/salams_app_update_removed_features/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/comments/1jpganf/salam_muslim_dating_app/
34. Ranzini, G., Rosenbaum, J.E., & Tybur, J.M. “Assortative (online) dating: Insights into partner choice from an experimental dating app.” Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 127. February 2022. https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/assortative-online-dating-insights-into-partner-choice-from-an-ex
35. Lin, K.F. & Lundquist, J. “Mate Selection in an Online Era: The Interplay of Race, Gender, and Education.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 119, No. 1. July 2013. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/673129
36. Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. “Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters.” ResearchGate. January 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26333132_Gendered_Racial_Exclusion_Among_White_Internet_Daters
37. Lin, K.F. & Lundquist, J. “Racial Homophily and Exclusion in Online Dating.” The University of Chicago Press Journals. 2013. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/673129
38. Hernandez, E. “Online Dating Deal Breakers: Dating App Preferences & Filters.” Eddie-Hernandez.com. Accessed October 2025. https://eddie-hernandez.com/online-dating-deal-breakers-dating-app-preferences-filters/
39. Okwodu, J. “Dating Through the Filters.” ResearchGate. May 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351311593_DATING_THROUGH_THE_FILTERS
40. The Spill Magazine. “Are Ethnicity Filters on Dating Apps Problematic or Necessary?” Accessed October 2025. https://www.thespillmag.com/article/are-ethnicity-filters-on-dating-apps-problematic-or-necessary/
41. Purdue Global Law School. “Is a Website or Mobile App a ‘Place of Public Accommodation’ Under the ADA?” Accessed October 2025. https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/website-app-public-accommodation-ada
42. Academic OUP. “Online Dating Sites as Public Accommodations.” Accessed October 2025. https://academic.oup.com/book/27505/chapter/197449343
43. van Bekkum, M. & Borgesius, R.Z. “The Breeze decision: how the Dutch non-discrimination authority decided on a case of algorithmic discrimination.” Technology Regulation. 2024. https://techreg.org/article/download/19591/25094/60640
44. McGloin, A. “Bumble dating app gender discrimination case settled.” Follow Our Courts. February 23, 2022. https://followourcourts.com/2022/02/bumble-dating-app-gender-discrimination-case-settled/
45. Lewis, K. “The limits of racial prejudice.” PNAS. Vol. 110, No. 47. November 19, 2013. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1308501110
46. BLK. “Safety Tips.” Accessed October 2025. https://www.blk-app.com/en/safety-tips
47. Jussupow, E., et al. “Love in The Algorithm Age – Can Transparency and Inclusivity Help.” Scribd. 2024. https://www.scribd.com/document/885797017/Love-in-the-Algorithm-Age-Can-Transparency-and-Inclusivity-Help
48. Castro, A. & Barrada, J.R. “Dating Apps: A Systematic Review.” PMC NCBI. October 13, 2020. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7557852/
49. Pew Research Center. “Key findings about online dating in the U.S.” February 2, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
50. Bilge, L. “AI dating scams & statistics: How to stay safe.” Norton. April 23, 2024. https://us.norton.com/blog/online-scams/ai-dating-scams-statistics
51. Macke, E. “Study Reveals Limitations of Online Dating.” For Your Marriage. Accessed October 2025. https://www.foryourmarriage.org/blogs/study-reveals-limitations-of-online-dating/