Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#251

Post by vmception » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

diputsmonro wrote: post #247

vmception wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was to say it without saying it, to provoke introspection in their arbitrary associations. The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job. And yet, this person chose that specific aspect of the relationship and elevated that to relevance for other relationships. Even further, they are applying this to people in other cities and geographies, amplify…

Quoted post unavailable.

Structure of a dating discussion: vilify anyone that doesn't pretend its awesome

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#252

Post by orthoxerox » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

88840-8855 wrote: post #210

canadaduane wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was banned for trying to create a 2nd account for my business.

That is great. Why would you have a "business" account on tinder?

Prostitution?

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#253

Post by mrep » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #225

colmvp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? In my area, single people also use Hinge, Bumble, CoffeeMeetsBagel, OKCupid, POF, Match... I'm fugly as hell but even I was able to find someone on a non-Tinder platform.

-Hinge: Seemingly the only viable competitor in the college scene -Bumble, OKCupid, POF, Match: 40+ only. -CoffeeMeetsBagel: ?

Bumble is definitely not 40+ only at least here in Chicago.

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#254

Post by kodah » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

Tinder and Bumble are the same form of awful and from the same founder. These apps are designed to exploit men. There are a fewer number of women on them and plenty of men, as a result they design features like boost, super likes, and premium subscriptions that you must pay for every month. There are studies and data that show that even normally attractive men with good profiles will go unswiped while women will get hundreds[1][2]. You then have to deal with a dating scene where you are knowingly competing with other men for a woman's attention while having very little in the form of options. The irony behind a TOS like this is it's designed to prevent bad behavior, but the entire underlying system generates more bad behavior. This is not to even mention the number of OnlyFans, prostitution, and people lying about their sexual orientation that users will need to sift through.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/riwo34/finally_got_...

[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bumble/comments/p3aeqq/dont_assume_...

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#255

Post by sebastianconcpt » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #235

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how raw red pill truths get downvoted here. Some seem to prefer to send technical brutal honesty about the current state of sexual market under the rug.

It could be the app, or it could be that women can easily smell the scent of desperation, entitlement, and resentment wafting off of you.

I don't know where did you take that from but Tinder's data show is actually women.

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#256

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #192

bigwheeler wrote: post #129

I just lost my IG account after having it for literally a decade. Short story: I thought my engagement was low, so I manually went through my not-very-large follower list (2400 or so) in the IG app, identified about 100 accounts that I thought were bots (accounts that were following 6000+ people), and then went to each one and removed them as a follower. I made it about 40 in when suddenly I got meaningless errors, l…

It is time these services were treated like a utility. If my energy supplier screws me around I can contact the regulator.

And if your town's Walmart bans you... drive to the next town? We should have clear principles over what is a utility and what is not. What principle unites both Tinder and your power company in regulatory conversation?

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#257

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

hnbad wrote: post #86

mschuster91 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but a few days ago I came to a new country That one is the key. Likely some analytics service (Facebook?) has his phone associated with country A (his country of origin), and Tinder sees the registration coming in from country B (new country). That mismatch then triggered some anti-fraud signalling.

Or some of the photos he uploaded contained nudity. Or some parts of his profile or some of his photos were considered hate speech under the community guidelines. Or his profile was considered "self-promotional" (e.g. advertising his work or services) or contained addresses or other means of contacting him. We know nothing.

Usually banned users get feedback about being banned. The ones usually not getting feedback are spammers - they are being shadowbanned to avoid spammers being able to deduce their ban cause and circumvent the anti-spam measure.

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#258

Post by BingoAhoy » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

"Big tech permabanned me and doesn't mind false positives"

Isn't this often the case with humans minus the algorithm making the decision? Many times of the few times I've been in trouble, with HR, the law, or whatever authority you realize doing things that seem bad but aren't actually bad is almost as dangerous as doing something actually harmful because turns out humans aren't very good judges of ambiguous cases in low information environments.

Even when not ambiguous humans by and large don't have a good grasp of what is or isn't moral. And they typically show a large lack of empathic ability for how their actions will effect others.

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#259

Post by spywaregorilla » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #251

diputsmonro wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Structure of a dating discussion: vilify anyone that doesn't pretend its awesome

Says the person vilifying someone for stating their requirement for romantic consideration is that the other person has the basic requisite for a stable lifestyle.

*No I don't want to hear edge cases about what constitutes a job; the context here was clear enough.

Re: Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

#260

Post by MereInterest » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

emacsen wrote: post #140

999900000999 wrote: post #106

By far the best part is they didn't automatically cancel his subscription. What a horrible company, if you've banned my account that's fine but cancel the subscription and refund my money. If y'all haven't looked at it yet, read up on the FCC's filing against Match. They knowingly prompt up tons of fake profiles, to get you engaged. Horrifically this has lead to romance scams being the number one source of fraud in t…

I don't know what happened in this situation, but generally refunding money for TOS violations is a bad idea. Let me explain why. Imagine that Alice runs a service where you can send people greeting cards. Bob decides he's going to use this service to cause trouble and instead of normal greeting cards, he sends people messages with hate speech, such as their race, their religion, says he hoped they get cancer, and so…

Generally refunding money for TOS violations should be mandatory, and failing to do so should have a default assumption of fraud on the part of the provider. Let me explain why.

Imagine that Alice purports to run a service where you can send people greeting cards. Bob decides that he's going to use this service to send greeting cards. Alice takes Bob's money, and never sends any greeting cards. When Bob asks why the greeting cards weren't sent, Alice claims a TOS violation and cancels Bob's account. In some cases, Alice may not even provide sufficient information to dispute a claim, such as when Alice's own proprietary anti-fraud or anti-cheat algorithms have a false positive.

Should Bob get a refund? If he doesn't, Alice has no incentive to provide the actual service or to avoid false-positives. She's costing Bob the subscription fees, but can unilaterally decide whether or not to provide the agreed-upon service.

That's why TOS violations should always trigger a refund.