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

121–130 of 131 posts

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

#121

Post by clusterfish »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #91
clusterfish wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say yes in principle, because the cost of providing insurance is mostly the cost of risk which objectively and significantly correlates with age. Same for health insurance for example. Taking more profit off younger drivers would still be wrong though imo. If the underlying cost of the service is legitimately and significantly affected by age, sure, charge accordingly. Tinder's case seems different. The examples…

I disagree that it costs Tinder the same amount for all users, regardless of age. Consider their COGS to be user acquisition costs. Serve too many unattractive people and those costs go up as people leave the platform. With the amount of data they have, I'm sure you could reliably estimate the cost of any given profiles being shown to any other given profile. This could be used to determine who profiles are shown to,…

The age as a proxy for attractiveness issue is better solved by matching algorithms that take age difference into account. I'd be surprised if they didn't do this already.

And tbh the whole attractiveness argument smells a lot like how black people were considered unattractive customers that would make it harder to sell to white customers in real estate transactions in 1950s America.

It's not unreasonable that marketing a fair platform would cost more than a discriminatory one, just as it's not unreasonable that e.g. mitigating pollution at a factory costs money.

Regulations should address such things to level the playing field of course, but shit companies trying to sneak in practices like this should be condemned.

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

#122

Post by NestedLoopGoBrr »

sasaf5 wrote: post #79
username90 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, men don't want high value women since men rarely get matches even when they reject nobody and get the less selected women. Women get matches all the time so they reject almost every candidates to get to the good ones, so to them the feature to remove results they would probably reject anyway is more important. However even for women with this feature you only get men who has plenty of options and is still…

> you only get men who has plenty of options and is still looking plus people that are ranked on a single dimension, so you only get the same kind of polished person that is liked by the majority. Now if Tinder would offer some sort of selection by categories like activities, tastes etc, that's a feature I would happily pay for. Other apps already have that.

They’re actually adding interests now as part of their matching algorithm, but the top picks are unique to each person, based on a number of different data points.

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

#123

Post by asdff »

Udik wrote: post #78
skocznymroczny wrote: post #20

OKCupid also charges men, especially more than women for their premium service. It's common on online dating apps. Not much different than real life... in many clubs women can go inside for free while men have to pay entry ticket fee.

I know it's common, but shouldn't it be illegal?

You'd think with rules on the books against discriminating on the basis of sex that it would be a slam dunk case, for this and night club covers, but there must have not been a serious legal challenge to the practice yet.

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

#124

Post by asdff »

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

I don't see how an insurance company could judge your driving without telemetry unless you've been wrecking cars and racking up points on your license.

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

#125

Post by asdff »

viklove wrote: post #112
DanBC wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is measuring G forces so bad? Your phone is doing it to report traffic data to the mapping service you rely on.

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

#126

Post by oliwarner »

theredlion wrote: post #119
Jestar342 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They're not suggesting that another injustice might not exist in higher education, more that it has nothing to do with the hypothetical of a dating app charging more based on race.

Just because there's publicly funded precedent, doesn't mean it's not something that should be tackled and fixed.

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

#127

Post by gambiting »

asdff wrote: post #125
viklove wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is measuring G forces so bad? Your phone is doing it to report traffic data to the mapping service you rely on.

Yep. My sister had the tracker because her insurance required it, and it was a complete nightmare. They threatened to cancel her insurance multiple times due to "dangerous speeding", after calling them they would say the tracker registered her driving 70mph in a 20mph zone, so we would request they send the data proving so.....and every single time, the tracker would register her driving on a small 20mph road going underneath a motorway where she was actually driving doing a legal 70mph. I mean, just looking at the GPS trace it was obvious that she was on the motorway for the last 50 miles, and now for that one read she was on a smaller road crossing the motorway? She would have had to teleport to do that.

As for the G-force tracker - it's also shit, she was getting points docked constantly for "smoothness" of driving, because every time you went through a speed bump the tracker would register "abrupt braking event" and recommend "smoother braking for better scores". It was such a shit system that she willingly paid 2x the premium on her next insurance to not have a tracker.

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

#128

Post by gambiting »

asdff wrote: post #124
DanBC wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

I don't see how an insurance company could judge your driving without telemetry unless you've been wrecking cars and racking up points on your license.

And I don't see how it's a problem, unless you make a claim on your car insurance, the car insurance provider should assume you drive like a saint.

After all, you would never agree to have trackers in your house just so the insurance company can judge if you're a safe home owner and lower your home insurance premium - why agree to it in cars?

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

#129

Post by oblio »

asdff wrote: post #123
Udik wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's common, but shouldn't it be illegal?

You'd think with rules on the books against discriminating on the basis of sex that it would be a slam dunk case, for this and night club covers, but there must have not been a serious legal challenge to the practice yet.

It's probably counterproductive. Yeah, you can sue and maybe you can win. But are you sure you want the end result?

Human attraction, unfortunately, is not very fair, and definitely doesn't really follow anti-discrimination practices, from everything I've read so far.

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

#130

Post by DanBC »

asdff wrote: post #125
viklove wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is measuring G forces so bad? Your phone is doing it to report traffic data to the mapping service you rely on.

They report location too.

https://www.carrotinsurance.com/help/what-data-does-the-blac...

> This includes data on speed, smoothness and usage, which all contribute to your total Driving Style Score.

> The black box also enables your car’s GPS location to be identified in the unfortunate event that your car gets stolen.

Post reply on HN