Home / News & Analysis / Badoo Uses Facial Recognition to Match You With Celeb Lookalikes

Badoo Uses Facial Recognition to Match You With Celeb Lookalikes

Wish you could snag a man that looks like Chris Hemsworth or a woman like Emily Blunt? Badoo wants to help you out.

The dating app just launched a new feature dubbed Lookalikes, which uses facial recognition to help you find potential matches that look just like your crush.

You can search thousands of celebrities — everyone from Kendall Jenner and Angelina Jolie to Michael Buble and Musk. Badoo claims that 856 of its users look "exactly" like the Tesla and SpaceX CEO. Not into him? The company says it has 975 Jake Gyllenhaal doppelgangers, 1,408 users that resemble Ed Sheeran, and 354 that look like British model David Gandy.

More into your hot doctor or a crush from school than David Beckham? Just low-key snap a photo of your crush, or grab one of them from the Internet, and upload it to Badoo to find lookalikes. The not-creepy-at-all feature also lets you select a specific Facebook friend to find their doubles.

Related

If you're curious about your competition in the dating pool, Badoo can now give you some insight as the feature also lets you find your own lookalikes.

Meanwhile, Badoo isn't the only service using facial recognition to hook you up with a hottie.

Porn site Megacams in September launched a feature that lets you upload a photo of someone you want to see nude and get matched up with a lookalike "sex model." To try it out, head here, then upload your photo and enter your email address. For the best result, be sure that the subject of your desire is visible from the front and the only person in the image.

Read more

Check Also

Undercover report shows the Facebook moderation sausage being made

An undercover reporter with the UK’s Channel 4 visited a content moderation outsourcing firm in Dublin and came away rather discouraged at what they saw: queues of flagged content waiting, videos of kids fighting staying online, orders from above not to take action on underage users. It sounds bad, but the truth is there are pretty good reasons for most of it and in the end the report comes off as rather naive. Not that it’s a bad thing for journalists to keep big companies (and their small contractors) honest, but the situations called out by Channel 4’s reporter seem to reflect a misunderstanding of the moderation process rather than problems with the process itself. I’m not a big Facebook fan, but in the matter of moderation I think they are sincere, if hugely unprepared. The bullet points raised by the report are all addressed in a letter from Facebook to the filmmakers. The company points out that some content needs to be left up because abhorrent as it is, it isn’t in violation of the company’s stated standards and may be informative; underage users and content has some special requirements but in other ways can’t be assumed to be real; popular pages do need to exist on different terms than small ones, whether they’re radical partisans or celebrities (or both); hate speech is a delicate and complex matter that often needs to be reviewed multiple times; and so on. The biggest problem doesn’t at all seem to be negligence by Facebook: there are reasons for everything, and as is often the case with moderation, those reasons are often unsatisfying but effective compromises. The problem is that the company has dragged its feet for years on taking responsibility for content and as such its moderation resources are simply overtaxed. The volume of content flagged by both automated processes and users is immense and Facebook hasn’t staffed up. Why do you think it’s outsourcing the work? By the way, did you know that this is a horrible job? Short film ‘The Moderators’ takes a look at the thankless job of patrolling the web Facebook in a blog post says that it is working on doubling its “safety and security” staff to 20,000, among which 6,500 will be on moderation duty. I’ve asked what the current number is, and whether that includes people at companies like this one (which has about 650 reviewers) and will update if I hear back. Even with a staff of thousands the judgments that need to be made are often so subjective, and the volume of content so great, that there will always be backlogs and mistakes. It doesn’t mean anyone should be let off the hook, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate a systematic failure other than, perhaps, a lack of labor. If people want Facebook to be effectively moderated they may need to accept that the process will be done by thousands of humans who imperfectly execute the task. Automated processes are useful but no replacement for the real thing. The result is a huge international group of moderators, overworked and cynical by profession, doing a messy and at times inadequate job of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Disclaimer: Trading in bitcoins or other digital currencies carries a high level of risk and can result in the total loss of the invested capital. theonlinetech.org does not provide investment advice, but only reflects its own opinion. Please ensure that if you trade or invest in bitcoins or other digital currencies (for example, investing in cloud mining services) you fully understand the risks involved! Please also note that some external links are affiliate links.