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

111–120 of 131 posts

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

#111

Post by Jestar342 »

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…

> There is no right/wrong here

Discrimination law strongly disagrees with you.

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

#112

Post by viklove »

DanBC wrote: post #59
gambiting wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't, I've been making this argument for years. In all of EU it's illegal to charge more for insurance based on gender, it should also be illegal to charge more based on age. Only your actual driving record, type of car being insured and possibly location should be taken into account when calculating the premium.

> Only your actual driving record, In practice this argument leads to insurance companies charging thousands per year for all new drivers, and then giving discounts to drivers willing to install surveillance devices that report all aspects of the driver's driving. https://www.confused.com/campaign/car-insurance/black-box

This is why we need regulation. That type of surveillance should be made illegal.

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

#113

Post by shadowgovt »

Jestar342 wrote: post #111
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…

> There is no right/wrong here Discrimination law strongly disagrees with you.

I believe this specific theory was tried, and rejected, by that lawyer who shot the husband and son of that federal judge.

http://www.roydenhollander.com/main/ladiesnightdc/LN_OrigCmp...

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

#114

Post by radegast »

qshqwudhoquc wrote: post #29
xd wrote: post #23

I've only done a quick bit of research but can't seem to find a clear list of protected characteristics in Oz like we have in the UK, age being one of them.. I don't use tinder but just looking up their pricing model it's £3.99 for under 28yo and £14.99 for 28yo and over in the UK... how is this not a breech of the Equality Act 2010?

I'm the last person to defend old men from discrimination (mostly because it's uncommon), but yeah this doesn't sound right to me.

and this is why Trump is gonna win again! :)

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

#115

Post by Redoubts »

goldenManatee wrote: post #108
fimdomeio wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This practice only works if companies keep paying male workers more, since essentially this is getting males to pay for those services keeping the lights on. The beneficiaries probably won’t complain since they pay less, but charging guys more is an inherently sexist practice which only makes sense continuing in a world with sexist salary and compensation practices.

> This practice only works if companies keep paying male workers more

Huh? That is completely unrelated to why this is done.

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

#116

Post by hellisothers »

To the people complaining this isn’t fair, let’s agree that:

* they’re not doing this to make more money off the higher charges cohort as that doesn’t make sense * they’re trying to make they most money, period, and that is done by attracting the most people overall * in order to do that they’re trying to maintain a ratio that attracts all cohorts of all sexes, ages, and orientations * because there is some non-reciprocal demand among cohorts (more older men like younger women than vice versa)

So if they just charged everybody an equally low rate you’d wind up with a lopsided population that none of the cohorts want and people would leave. Nobody wants this.

So arguing it’s not fair because discrimination isn’t fair as a rhetorical argument feels intellectually dishonest since the state you’re advocating for is a failed one.

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

#117

Post by AjithAntony »

polote wrote: post #88
NestedLoopGoBrr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Tinder is still there for the "discovery" of the people to add on Instagram, that is not going to change. Tinder doesn't make any extra money after people match, whether they continue to chat in or out of the app. Once connections are made and the users move out of the app, they still come back to Tinder for more discovery.

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

#118

Post by ryandrake »

To me, this isn't a discrimination thing as much as it is simply different prices for different products. Dating sites offer men and women wildly different products. Men (especially older men) are paying for volume--a steady supply of potential matches, since matches are extremely rare. Women are paying for a filter, since otherwise they would all be inundated with matches all the time. Totally different products. I'd imagine the product for men is likely a lot more difficult to provide, too, hence the higher price.

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

#119

Post by theredlion »

Jestar342 wrote: post #110
theredlion wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not op, but I'll counter with the question: how do you feel about public universities discriminating based on race and sex, which they do

No op either, but negatively, too. Why on earth would think that that make it all ok?

Because publicly funded universities hold different ethnicities to different standards which favor particular underrepresented groups simply due to their group identity rather than to a consistent, objective standards.

I asked because the response to that question helps me understand w the point of view one is coming from

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

#120

Post by bradlys »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #97
Razengan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or create better ones.

Great in theory, in practice you'll land in a hugely competitive market and you'll be struggling to find enough people to sign up. Actually you'll likely find plenty of men, but women - actual, genuinely interested women, not bots / scam accounts - is a lot more difficult. Personally, I think one should create social communities and have things develop from there, not dating sites where the only reason to go there is…

Genuinely curious - do you think such a mechanism like yours is really relevant to the rest of the population?

I'm not sure what you were doing in those 10 years leading up to you two getting together... but most of us want to be dating someone in that time - not waiting 10 years for a single match.

Post reply on HN