Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#81

Post by clusterfish »

gambiting wrote: post #74
clusterfish wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does work like this in some places, and younger drivers aren't any better off in terms of pricing, speaking from personal experience. So this is 95% just pricing by age "with extra steps" as they say. Consider this: if the first accident happens to an average person after 10 years of driving, young people will take a loooong time to build a driving record that can even be considered average let alone good. And you…

Sure, but the exact same argument applies to charging men more - we know as a matter of fact that men get into more accidents than women do, for various reasons. Yet at least some places decided it's illegal to charge men more - so knowing that it's a statistical inevitably that men will cause more accidents, now both sexes pay more, but at least the premiums are equal. Is it better overall? My internal logic tells m…

Age is different because it is much more equitable. Everyone was young and most people will grow to be old so most people will see both the upside and downside of fair-risk pricing by age.

Not the same with gender or race, you're stuck with what you're born with (statistically insignificant numbers of transitions notwithstanding).

I think this is a meaningful, if not perfect, distinction.

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#82

Post by Udik »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #64
fimdomeio wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that is common doesn't make it right.

There is no right/wrong here, Tinder is a business, not a public square or a public service, you choose willingly to use their service so they can charge whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it. Just like in a night club or country club, the house is free to set whichever memebership rules it wants, if you don't like them you are free to go somewhere else. Unlike the jobs market, the dating market and its…

So are you fine with a service that charges black people more? Or a private company that decides not to hire gays? They're both not public squares or services, right?

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#83

Post by [deleted] »

Udik wrote: post #82
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no right/wrong here, Tinder is a business, not a public square or a public service, you choose willingly to use their service so they can charge whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it. Just like in a night club or country club, the house is free to set whichever memebership rules it wants, if you don't like them you are free to go somewhere else. Unlike the jobs market, the dating market and its…

So are you fine with a service that charges black people more? Or a private company that decides not to hire gays? They're both not public squares or services, right?

[deleted]

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#84

Post by Razengan »

Dating apps are probably one of the best examples of conflict of interest: Your purpose is to help people stop using your service!

When money comes into play, you obviously don't want your users to leave.

Honestly, at this point, who is to say that the good matches are not paid employees acting as real users, or that "ghosting" (ending matches or blocking messages) isn't forced by the service, to induce an addiction? Clearly they can get away with scummy tactics, so why not milk all the money they can?

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#85

Post by kwistzhaderach »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #64
fimdomeio wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that is common doesn't make it right.

There is no right/wrong here, Tinder is a business, not a public square or a public service, you choose willingly to use their service so they can charge whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it. Just like in a night club or country club, the house is free to set whichever memebership rules it wants, if you don't like them you are free to go somewhere else. Unlike the jobs market, the dating market and its…

If that logic is applied, it is perfectly fine to charge some races more than others.

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#86

Post by insickness »

gambiting wrote: post #32
qshqwudhoquc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with this is that these decisions aren't necessarily being made because of operating costs. It doesn't cost more to host a man than a woman.

Having too many men can impact the experience women have, and if they leave then the entire platform collapses. The cost to "host" a user is the same regardless of gender but platforms like these work only if the gender ratio is at least somewhat balanced - the fee seems to help with that, just like it does in a physical club(where it also doesn't cost any more to host a man than it does a woman).

Gay men are charged $8-13 while gay women are charged $7. Gay men and women aren't dating each other so this has nothing to do with gender imbalance.

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#87

Post by a_f »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #69
M2Ys4U wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adjusting prices by demographic is so common in many industries. And often illegal. Discrimination based on sex/gender or age is (usually) prohibited in Europe, for example, unless there are very compelling grounds to do so.

If we reverse the "expensive for older men" and call it "discount for younger men/free for women" is it still discrimination?

Of course. The issue lies in the difference based on gender/age, not the weighting to either party

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#88

Post by polote »

NestedLoopGoBrr wrote: post #63
polote wrote: post #48

Tinder has two goals: - make the most money from vulnerable people - make non vulnerable people behave like if they were on a social network Having different price, per geography, gender and age is just a consequence of the first. It is not surprising that you can't see anymore the instagram handles of people on tinder. Instagram is a direct competitor to tinder for most of their users ( the non vulnerable ones). Act…

Tinder removed the IG handles more likely because men were stalking women’s instagrams and it wasn’t immediately obvious connecting to instagram was going to display your username for all to see.

Bumble did it for that, probably not tinder. Most people who put their insta expect others to be able to add them on insta. This is the whole point of insta, it is to have the most people as possible watching at you. Tinder has always struggled to keep users in their app, which is the most important goal when you are a social network

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#89

Post by [deleted] »

Razengan wrote: post #84

Dating apps are probably one of the best examples of conflict of interest: Your purpose is to help people stop using your service! When money comes into play, you obviously don't want your users to leave. Honestly, at this point, who is to say that the good matches are not paid employees acting as real users, or that "ghosting" (ending matches or blocking messages) isn't forced by the service, to induce an addiction?…

[deleted]

Re: Older men charged more for using Tinder's premium service

#90

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #64
fimdomeio wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that is common doesn't make it right.

There is no right/wrong here, Tinder is a business, not a public square or a public service, you choose willingly to use their service so they can charge whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to use it. Just like in a night club or country club, the house is free to set whichever memebership rules it wants, if you don't like them you are free to go somewhere else. Unlike the jobs market, the dating market and its…

If it was employment, would you hold them to the same standard? They too are businesses after all; by your logic, they get to pay you more or less depending on factors like gender, age, etc.

You're applying this corporate-libertarian ideal to this situation but only a small change to your statement undermines it.

Post reply on HN