Would you pay for an algorithm to pick your friends? New social apps spread across cities
A wave of paid social clubs, including Cliq, PLY and Agora, is expanding across UK cities, using algorithms rather than users themselves to decide who they meet at organised events. The trend is being driven by the decline of "third spaces" such as pubs and youth centres, a rise in remote working, and growing loneliness, with ONS figures showing 40% of 16- to 29-year-olds feel lonely "always, often or some of the time". Founders argue these platforms fill a gap left by broad, disorganised Facebook groups, offering more genuine, interest-based communities instead.
Membership models vary: PLY charges from around £9.99 to £19.99 a month for exclusive events and business discounts, while Agora and Cliq offer pay-as-you-go options that some users find less pressuring than subscriptions. PLY's founder says it typically takes about three events to "find your person", and some platforms offer money-back guarantees if members fail to connect within a month. Not everyone is convinced paying to make friends is a positive development, though founders counter that commitment and consistent attendance are key to tackling loneliness effectively.
- Paid social clubs like Cliq, PLY and Agora are spreading across UK cities.
- Algorithms, not users, choose who attends which events.
- Costs range from free to £20/month, aimed at easing rising loneliness.
New here? Start with this
A “third space” is a place to spend time outside home and work, such as a pub, café or youth centre. Remote working and the loss of some shared spaces have changed where people meet, while surveys suggest loneliness is common among young adults.
Paid social clubs such as Cliq, PLY and Agora organise events and use algorithms to match people, often around shared interests. Their founders say this offers a more focused way to meet than joining broad online groups.
Some clubs charge a monthly fee, while others let people pay for individual events. The idea raises questions about whether friendship-building services should be paid for, and whether regular, organised meet-ups can help people form lasting connections.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
These platforms address a genuine and worsening crisis. With traditional third spaces declining and remote work intensifying isolation, algorithmic matching offers a pragmatic solution that demonstrably works for many users. The paid model paradoxically strengthens outcomes by ensuring genuine commitment and consistent attendance—factors research suggests are essential to building real friendships. The interest-based curation produces more compatible connections than chance encounters, and money-back guarantees reflect real confidence in the product's efficacy.
The case against
Whilst addressing symptoms, these services risk cementing a troubling commodification of human connection itself. Rather than tackling root causes—the systematic decline of public spaces, atomised work culture, and underfunded community infrastructure—they monetise loneliness as a product to consume. Algorithmic matching may foster transactional rather than organic relationships, deepening filter bubbles and social segmentation. Society should invest in rebuilding genuine civic spaces and communities instead of asking people to pay for what once emerged naturally from shared public life.