A recent Changing Times podcast conversation examined a problem increasingly described in public health and social policy as a “loneliness” or “social connection” crisis: the erosion of everyday, face-to-face relationships and the difficulty many adults report in forming and sustaining friendships after early adulthood. In the episode, the guest, Gabor, positioned repeated relocation and work-driven mobility as a personal pathway into social isolation, and as a window into a broader structural issue: many people are “connected” online while lacking reliable, local, in-person social ties.
That lived experience provided the foundation for Gabor’s current project, Friending: a mobile app designed to support neighbourhood-based friendship formation, while explicitly trying to minimise prolonged online interaction and move users towards meeting in person.
Why loneliness is now treated as a public health issue
The episode’s core argument aligns with a growing evidence base: loneliness and social isolation are not merely individual emotional states, but are associated with measurable health and wellbeing outcomes. A prominent meta-analysis in PLOS Medicine found that stronger social relationships are associated with improved survival, with effect sizes comparable to other established mortality risk factors.
More recent epidemiological research continues to link isolation and loneliness with disease outcomes. For example, a large study of older women in JAMA Network Open reported that social isolation and loneliness were associated with increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease.
In policy terms, the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory framing loneliness and isolation as a population-level concern has been widely cited, including in practical “issue brief” materials for clinicians and communities (for example, risk factors and intervention levers).
Gabor also referenced economic impacts (lost productivity and absenteeism) that have been discussed in business and policy reporting.
The post-school “friendship cliff”: structural drivers discussed in the episode
A recurring theme was the difficulty of friendship formation after the highly structured social environments of school and university. Gabor attributed this to several intersecting changes:
- Work and mobility patterns. Changing jobs, moving cities (or countries), and fragmented schedules reduce repeated, low-stakes contact—the kind of contact that historically produced friendships through routine rather than deliberate effort.
- Remote and hybrid work. Gabor described working from home before and after COVID-era shifts, arguing that reduced workplace co-presence can remove one of the last “default” sites for regular adult social interaction.
- Screen-based social substitution. The conversation distinguished between large online networks and the smaller number of relationships that involve mutual support, shared time, and embodied co-presence.
Gabor’s interpretation echoes a broader demographic reality: household and living-arrangement patterns have changed in many high-income contexts, including growth in people living alone and shifts in family structure reported in official statistics.
What Friending proposes: technology that is meant to be temporary
Gabor’s central design claim was deliberately paradoxical: the app is built to reduce time spent in the app. Friending is framed less like a “feed” to scroll and more like a tool to locate nearby people with compatible activities, then transition to offline contact.
In the episode, several design choices were emphasised:
- Locality as a constraint. Users set a geographic radius so the pool of potential connections remains within practical meeting distance (Gabor mentioned a slider approach).
- Activity-based matching. The app uses interest prompts (described as “are you in?” cards) to connect people around specific, repeatable activities—walking, tennis, surfing, book discussions, and other local routines. The rationale is behavioural: friendships are more likely to persist when there is a shared practice that can be repeated without extensive planning.
- An explicit push toward in-person confirmation. Gabor described a model in which “responding” to a connection involves meeting physically, with confirmation based on phones being in close proximity.
In public-facing product descriptions, Friending is positioned as an app for meeting “real people who share real interests,” supporting local connection, and encouraging users to move from matching to real-world plans.
Safety and verification: designing around predictable risks
The episode devoted substantial attention to safety—arguably unusual for a friendship app, but presented as essential given longstanding concerns about fake profiles and identity deception in adjacent app markets.
Key measures described included:
- Identity verification via third-party services. Gabor stated that users would be verified (naming Persona as the verification provider). Persona is widely used as an identity verification platform for digital services, offering tools for confirming identity documents and related checks.
- A “waiting room” concept. According to Gabor, users who have not completed the verification/payment step can view but not fully interact, limiting unverified engagement.
- In-app safety actions. Gabor described an emergency function (triggered by repeated taps) that could alert selected contacts or, depending on configuration, authorities—using GPS location.
From a social research perspective, these claims map onto two well-studied problems: (1) trust deficits in digitally mediated matching; and (2) the risk that fear of harm suppresses participation, especially among groups that already experience elevated everyday safety burdens. Whether these mechanisms improve uptake and reduce harm is an empirical question, but the episode positioned them as a deliberate attempt to build trust as a feature, not an afterthought.
The pricing model and equity question
Gabor described a planned subscription fee (a modest monthly or annual amount) to cover server costs and verification, while also outlining an intention to provide free access for users below an income threshold.
That dual logic matters because the episode also highlighted a neglected driver of loneliness: material constraint. If friendship formation depends on paid memberships, transport, or “third places” that require spending, then people with fewer resources face a compounded barrier—less mobility, fewer accessible venues, and fewer opportunities to sustain shared activities.
A subscription model can, in theory, fund safety and reduce spam. It can also, in practice, exclude people who would benefit most unless a credible and administratively simple subsidy pathway exists. Gabor acknowledged that operationalising “free for those who need it” requires careful eligibility design.
“Getting off the screen”: what the episode suggests about behaviour change
Across the episode, Gabor’s aspiration can be read as a behaviour-change hypothesis:
- Make the first step easier (identify a nearby person who wants to do the same activity).
- Reduce the friction and ambiguity of proposing a meeting (limit chat loops, encourage concrete invitations).
- Increase perceived safety (verification, emergency functions).
- Create repeatability (activity-based ties that can become routine).
This aligns with a pragmatic view of friendship as something built through repeated exposure and shared practice, not simply shared identity categories or online affinity. It also implicitly critiques “attention economy” design: if the core social outcome is offline connection, the app’s success is measured by leaving the interface, not staying on it.
