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

Tinder’s pricing algorithm can charge users up to 5x more for same service

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–174 of 174 posts

Re: Tinder’s pricing algorithm can charge users up to 5x more for same service

#171

Post by dhosek »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #112
dhosek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It varies based on state though. In California, insurers are legally prohibited from using race, sex or zip code in pricing. It's supposed to be strictly based on age, vehicle type and claims history, although I have no doubt that insurers do their best to get around that. (Side note, in the lead up to the restriction on how insurers could base their premiums, there was a failed initiative in the 90s that would have…

In NZ, car insurance companies openly use location, gender and age in pricing. Men under 25 pay the highest premiums due to their repeated statistically demonstrated tendency to take far more risks and accordingly have far more serious accidents. (And good luck getting full insurance if you're male, under 25 and own a vehicle with a turbo.) Likewise, women 30+ get lower premiums than men because while they have more…

I used to teach LaTeX classes for the TeX Users Group starting when I was in college up until my mid 20s (so roughly 1989–1994). It was very challenging to find companies that would rent cars to me when I would travel to various locations to teach.

Re: Tinder’s pricing algorithm can charge users up to 5x more for same service

#172

Post by ryandrake »

Beltalowda wrote: post #163
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they so bad that the average male profile is somehow below average?

If half the profiles are just a no-brainer "no" then the "real average" is only over the top 50% rather than the full 100%. I don't deny that using these apps as a man is a more difficult experience in actually landing a date, but many women are also frustrated by the tons of crappy/creepy men out there (e.g. "dickpics" and such). Being in the "top 30/20%" is easier than you'd might think. The biggest challenge is th…

I think you guys are both in agreement. If half the profiles are, say, 0 out of 10, then there's no way the average could be > 5. I mean, that's just math. I don't understand dropping all values less than the median to get a "real average". It's absolutely possible that women rate 80% as below average--that just indicates a huge number of zeros or huge unimodal distribution towards the low end of the range.

I've been married for a long time so thankfully don't need to use Tinder, but this reported rating distribution squares with my memory of the dating market in meatspace. 90% of women go after the top 20% of the guys. Online probably doesn't change this.

Re: Tinder’s pricing algorithm can charge users up to 5x more for same service

#174

Post by thaumasiotes »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #66
judge2020 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with how nearly every theatre in the country charges less for children and elderly patrons.

That one's easy; "age" is not a protected class. The protected class is "people over 40". Discriminating against young and youngish adults is fine. You might try making an argument that theaters have to give you senior pricing as soon as you turn 40; I don't know what's going on there.

Returning to the thought, one obvious argument for the theater would be that, since they're giving preferential pricing to other people who are also over 40, they are not discriminating against you based on your membership in the protected class. But that would still seem to leave them open to a claim that you should be given the child's pricing as soon as you turn 40.
Post reply on HN