The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South The Platform Question: Power, Accountability and Global South 50. Quack Quack’s Privacy Policy states that it may share non-personal information as well as personal information (in hashed, non-human readable format) with “other group products and third parties (notably advertisers) to develop and deliver targeted advertising on our services and on websites or applications of third parties, and to analyze and report on advertising you see.” 51. Aisle, like many other platforms, does not provide users granular control to determine how their content is shared and processed by third parties. For instance, the Privacy Policy states that when users upload their pictures, Aisle “may use an external face recognition tool and other techniques to select the best pictures for Your Account.” It does not provide more information on these external tools and it appears from both the Privacy Policy and the user interface of the platform, that there is no option for users to deny consent for such processing. 52. Quack Quack shares user information with service providers and partners, other group products and legal authorities. It does not grant users an option to opt out of such data sharing except under very limited (and unclear) circumstances. For instance, as per the Privacy Policy, when sharing user information with group products for the purpose of cross functionality or visibility on new services developed by the group, “we will of course comply with applicable law and, where relevant, notify you of any such opportunity and allow you to agree or to refuse.” 53. As per the Privacy Policy, data is retained as long as strictly necessary or allowed by law ( whichever is shorter). Personal data may be erased if the user has not logged in for more than five years. On account deletion, personal data is deleted after a three-year safety retention window. 54. The platform retains “personal information only as long as we need it for legitimate business purposes and as permitted by applicable law.” It does not specify the duration of such retention. 55. As per the platform’s Privacy Policy, users can contact their support team to delete data permanently from their records. It is unclear whether data is still retained for “safety retention window of upto three years following account deletion.” 56. On Quack Quack, users can only deactivate their account from the user interface and they need to contact the platform to Suspend/Delete their account. Even on deletion, a user’s profile information is only removed from other users’ view and their information may continue to appear in certain search results. The platform will also continue to retain the information for “record keeping.” It is unclear how users can permanently delete their information from the platform. 57. The Exclusivity feature tracks and allows premium Aisle members to find out how many people their match interacted with in the last 3 days (without 62 Platform Accountability in Online Dating the knowledge of the latter). This is categorised into ‘fewer than 5’, ‘more than 5’, or 10, or 20 interactions. 58. See Kenneth James Lay, ‘Sexual Racism: A Legacy of Slavery’ (1993) 13 National Black Law Journal 165 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein. journals/natblj13&id=169&div=&collection=>; Manoj Mitta, ‘The Outrage of Marrying Up’, Caste pride: Battles for equality in Hindu India (Context 2023). 59. Josue Ortega and Philipp Hergovich, ‘The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating’ (arXiv, 14 September 2018) <http://arxiv.org/ abs/1709.10478> accessed 10 August 2025. 60. Apryl Williams, Not My Type: Automating Sexual Racism in Online Dating (Stanford University Press 2024). 61. See Mitchell and Wells for the argument that while it might generally be justifiable to date or not date someone based on attractiveness, maintaining racially exclusive dating pools is not morally defensible. Megan Mitchell and Mark Wells, ‘Race, Romantic Attraction, and Dating’ (2018) 21 Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 945, <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10677-018-9936-0> accessed 17 August 2025. 62. Williams defines sexual racism as, “personal racialised reasoning in sexual, intimate, and or romantic partner choice of interest.” See Williams (n 60). 63. A study highlights how a majority of male respondents considered racism on dating platforms as problematic but 70% did not consider indicating racial preferences online as a form of racism. See Denton Callander, Christy E Newman and Martin Holt, ‘Is Sexual Racism Really Racism? Distinguishing Attitudes Toward Sexual Racism and Generic Racism Among Gay and Bisexual Men’ (2015) 44 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1991 <http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10508015-0487-3> accessed 17 August 2025. 64. In 2014, OKCupid released data on how men and women across different groups rate attractiveness. It found that Asian, Latino and White men rate Black women as 20%, 18%, and 17% less attractive than other women on their platforms, respectively. By contrast, white men were rated as 18%, 12% and 19% more attractive by Asian, Latina and White women as compared to other men on the platforms. See Blog <http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/race-attraction-2009-2014/> in Williams (n 60). 65. Williams (n 60). Also see Wei-Chin Hwang, ‘Who Are People Willing to Date? Ethnic and Gender Patterns in Online Dating’ (2013) 5 Race and Social Problems 28 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-012-9082-6> accessed 17 August 2025; Gina Potârcă and Melinda Mills, ‘Racial Preferences in Online Dating across European Countries’ (2015) 31 European Sociological Review 326 <https://academic.oup. com/esr/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/esr/jcu093> accessed 17 August 2025. Platform Accountability in Online Dating 63