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

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

#261

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

helloworld11 wrote: post #146

tarboreus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not single and haven't been fora long time, but my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps, so it's harder to find people in the real world. Not impossible, obviously, but getting banned from Tinder is kind of a big deal. (Also all these apps are owned by th…

No offense, but bullshit. I've personally never once in my life used a single dating app and have met plenty of dates and love interests the old fashioned way, by interacting with them in the real world after random encounters (bars, events etc) or through circles of friends. Most of the people I know met their own love interests in the same way. I don't live in some backward country with little app use either. What…

While I'm not a big fan of Tinder, monetizing romantic/sexual interest is nothing new. In fact, it's historically been the norm rather than the exception. The "Monetization & Defenestration" approach may not have been done through a shitty app, but a shitty date can you get kicked out of a bar, a concert, a restaurant, a nightclub, etc. for no reason and with no recourse for your money back even if you've done nothing wrong. I don't say this to justify these acts, but to acknowledge that they exist. While I hope OP fights the charges, $20 is a small sum to lose in comparison to a $200 concert ticket.

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

#262

Post by Buttons840 » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

zionic wrote: post #198

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…

>All of the avenues to contact Instagram are meaningless and don’t lead anywhere. I feel you. I got permabanned from tinder when I emailed their support asking how the verification process worked with couples. They replied with a ban notice and I was confused, turns out couples profiles are against Tinders T&C. I hadn't actually done ANYTHING to violate their T&C in-app yet, just asking their support about it was eno…

Perhaps if Congress ever actually considers regulating these companies, whether or not you can get some legit customer service should be part of determining who is big enough to regulate.

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

#263

Post by cultofmetatron » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

Mezzie wrote: post #232

tarboreus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not single and haven't been fora long time, but my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps, so it's harder to find people in the real world. Not impossible, obviously, but getting banned from Tinder is kind of a big deal. (Also all these apps are owned by th…

If you're gay, this is true. Especially if you don't live in a large city. I've just given up on finding a wife/partner. My options are just... bad.

if you're in north America, take heart that its not your fault! The American dating market is absolute garbage.

I've been traveling around the world the last few years and have had no problems finding casual hookups and longer term relationships. I'm currently dating a beautiful Colombiana. I would have thought she was out of my league if I was still living in the US.

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

#264

Post by gretch » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

endofreach wrote: post #240

zionic wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All of the avenues to contact Instagram are meaningless and don’t lead anywhere. I feel you. I got permabanned from tinder when I emailed their support asking how the verification process worked with couples. They replied with a ban notice and I was confused, turns out couples profiles are against Tinders T&C. I hadn't actually done ANYTHING to violate their T&C in-app yet, just asking their support about it was eno…

The monopoly on dating is definitely not tinder… it is: real life.

This is why the anti-trust movements against FAANG have such a hard time gaining mainstream traction. People start hijacking the word “monopoly” and it becomes incredibly diluted and undermines the credibility of the narrative.

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

#265

Post by PoignardAzur » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

BingoAhoy wrote: post #258

"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…

Yeah, I'd say "whether humans are involved" isn't actually a good metric for whether abuse detection is fair / avoids screwing you over.

A better proxy would be "how much the company spends per user to detect false positives". Whether it's human oversight for each case, or engineering time spent fine-tuning algorithms to exclude known false positives, the more the company spends, the less it's going to screw you over.

(In practice, companies want to spend very little, which is why you get underpaid Mechanical-Turk workers and slapped-together detection systems.)

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

#266

Post by MereInterest » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

emacsen wrote: post #234

hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know what happened in this situation, but generally refunding money for TOS violations is a bad idea. You can learn the article and learn what happened. We are not talking about things in general, but about this particular situation. Basically, it's pure theft. But since the amount is so low, nobody will sue them. In this way they can scam thousands of people and go unpunished.

There's nothing in the article indicating why he was banned. They say he violated the ToS. He says he didn't. Maybe it was a false positive, but we don't have enough information to know what happened.

The right to remain silent is a vital right in criminal court cases, but certainly doesn't apply to our own conclusions. Consider that only Tinder has records indicating whether there was a ToS violation, and what that violation was. Tinder is not releasing those records. Tinder has a financial incentive to claim that there is a ToS violation. Putting those three items together isn't proof that Tinder is lying, but is evidence in that direction.

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

#267

Post by cultofmetatron » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

polote wrote: post #91

wayoutthere wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a woman, Tinder is fine if you wanna find a fuck buddy and don’t take it seriously. I see a lot of people (men and women) get wrapped up in the swipe game and that’s really not how it works. You can’t take anything that happens on that platform personally. Unfortunately, rule #1 on tinder is “be physically attractive”. If you want tinder to work for you consistently as a man, get your personal hygiene in order and…

> rule #1 on tinder is “be physically attractive” For guys it used to be right, now rule #1 is more "be super attractive" or "be attractive and don't have standard" For girls rule #1 is "be a girl"

too true, I once had a conversation with a friend of mine. She was saying to just use tinder. As we were about to get in the car, I told her: I'll do nothing but swipe till we get there. if I get a match, I'll pay for lunch when we arrive, otherwise you pay.

She said yes.

easiest free meal I ever got

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

#268

Post by wayoutthere » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #180

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Maybe thinking about sexuality as a market is your first problem. If you’re not physically attractive, just don’t use Tinder; it’s not the only way to find someone to date.

Shouldn’t be a surprise that someone who blames “women” as a whole for his problems would have a hard time meeting women.

And as a corollary, I’ve dated super hot guys before and frankly a lot of them have a hard time with relationships because it was so easy for them to hook up when they were younger they don’t know how to put the effort in to make someone feel desired.

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

#269

Post by vmception » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #259

vmception wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think they didn't say unemployed for a reason, which is why I didn't say unemployed for a reason. Not having a job is different than needing a job for food and shelter and any flexibility, the former is "not having a job" the latter is "unemployed". I don’t consider that an edge case.

What I got out of it is that they had a bad experience with someone not occupying their time with something.

I "vilify", or more-so call out, their overfitting. You’re assuming they didnt have a basic stable lifestyle AND that they became a burden to OP. I’m assuming they could have had any level of stability and became a burden to OP for any reason, that at least removes the predictive capability for determining if the other potential partners would become a burden to OP.

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

#270

Post by cultofmetatron » Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #137

polote wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rule #1 on tinder is “be physically attractive” For guys it used to be right, now rule #1 is more "be super attractive" or "be attractive and don't have standard" For girls rule #1 is "be a girl"

[flagged]

This is only really true in north america (especially if you're of Indian descent). Women have much more realistic expectations once you get out of that cesspit