To take it a step further, throw your phone away. I've been digital overseer/fear machine free for almost 2 years now, and can definitively say it's the best decision a person can make for their mental well being.
This seems like a kind of overfitting. The phone itself isn't a problem, at least as concerns the fear machine. On the other hand, staying linked to Facebook is a problem. I make regular daily use of my phone, but the use is limited to: * Email * Select communication channels (Slack/Signal/etc) * Reading books offline (I download them in advance) * Bus pass * Flashcards * A couple of offline ad-free games I deny push…
Flashcards? That's doesn't seem to have much to do with ending a phone addiction?
> That's called shadowban in the case of OP. I’d call that fraud. If you pay for a service you get to use the service.
No, banning someone from a paid service is not fraud.
It is if they silo you off without notifying you and make sure no one else can see you and keep taking your money. Now I don't know if tender is doing that provably, but that was the thesis.
I know "don't use social networks made by evil megacorps that make money by trampling all over your privacy and making you addicted" is the kind of advice everyone sagely nods at but no one heeds. But it especially applies to dating apps. Like the proverbial sausages, once you know what goes on under the hood you won't ever feel like touching one of them with a ten foot pole.
> once you know what goes on under the hood you won't ever feel like touching one of them with a ten foot pole. I love gaming the algorithm to meet hotter* people than I would meet using the apps the most intuitive way. *It's not subjective, there are profiles that attract way more attention and would either: never be shown to you, or you never shown to them.
How does one even game it unless you’re putting up fake photos? And at that point - what’s the point…? That person won’t date the actual you.
From Tinder's ToS: > Tinder may terminate your account at any time without notice if it believes that you have violated this Agreement. Upon such termination, you will not be entitled to any refund for purchases. > For residents of the Republic of Korea, except in the case [...], we will without delay notify you of the reason for taking the relevant step. They openly say in advance that they'll ban users who they thi…
"Take their money and run" is one of those standard operating practices in big tech that I think obviously needs legislation to curb. Once you start looking, you see it everywhere; whether its movies on iTunes, books on Kindle, or costumes in Fortnite. If you break their ToS, they're allowed to cancel your account, without recourse, and take away all the content you purchased. Its especially egregious in gaming, wher…
What you don't seem to realize here is that various app stores, etc almost never sell you any content. They sell you a temporary revokable right to access content. It's like a movie theater ticket, with an added bonus of ushers being paranoid assholes that could kick you out any moment without a reason. You don't own the movie, you can just watch it, if you're lucky. If you think that service isn't worth the price - tell them that, loudly, and use other options. But as long as millions of people are ok with it, they're not going to change - they have no reason to. If people treat temporary right to peek at the goods as goods being sold to them - why not enjoy it?
It also used to be a social stigma which is why it had blackmail value. That's no longer the case in a lot of western countries.
still, the dataset of "who screwed whom, when, for how long" seems valuable for enriching other social graphs. it's not that of a stigma nowadays, but i could be again, and certainly is if you are becoming a person of interest.
Maybe a slight interest for now but in the future? No one will care. Todays generation is far more sex positive than previous - even if they’re getting laid way less than previous ones due to dating apps.
It definitely does seem possible to me to violate terms of service without any likes or matches. We don't know what was on their profile.
It's against ToS for your profile to include other means to contact you, like other online profiles. That's my guess.
If that's the case they should ban half of their users who add their instagram handles in their profiles, and more than half of their very attractive users who do the same but make their app more desirable.
This is basically the paradigm of any monopolistic or near monopolistic system. You can screw over a small minority without provoking a real response so long as you are appeasing or distracting the majority. Big tech, traditional companies, and even government.
This is the paradigm of any system, period. If you work correctly for the most part, the minority which you create negative value for can be offset and establish that system as viable. This is true for brick and morter/mom and pop businesses. It's true for computer programs. Basically any system. It is not an indicator for a monopoly.
To me this seems to be readily apparent, but I'm getting downvotes without reply. I'm sincerely curious how what I've said can be disagreed with, do you not all use software that gives you a negative value but maybe gives positive value to your managers? Is that tool a monopoly or does my statement just hold true?
Every system that survives, survives because it generates positive value for most people, no? Are you telling me that every business that isn't a monopoly only generates positive value and there's no negative value generated for a minority of customers?
I wonder. Standards might have changed for the younger population, necessary flirting skills in person are no longer maintained as widely as they used to. Generally, things that are challenging tend to be taken over by technology. It is not that different from how people forgot to orient themselves in a city without navigational apps. Or how they no longer know how to, say, make butter (unlike in 1900).
It's not just that, those flirting skills are not safe to use anymore. You can get an harassment charge for touching someone in the arm these days (happened to some lonely autistic kid). Having confirmation of mutual attraction first makes things both easier and safer.
This simply not true, or way blown out of proportion. I'm single, so I go out almost every weekend (West LA): plenty of people flirting, making out, touching, dancing, etc. Dating apps are a complete waste of time when compared to meeting people in real life.
I wonder. Standards might have changed for the younger population, necessary flirting skills in person are no longer maintained as widely as they used to. Generally, things that are challenging tend to be taken over by technology. It is not that different from how people forgot to orient themselves in a city without navigational apps. Or how they no longer know how to, say, make butter (unlike in 1900).
It's not just that, those flirting skills are not safe to use anymore. You can get an harassment charge for touching someone in the arm these days (happened to some lonely autistic kid). Having confirmation of mutual attraction first makes things both easier and safer.
Touch-consent is as easy to do as asking a question. Not really sure what the big deal is.
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…
That's not how cancellations for subscriptions or refunds for services work though. If Bob has paid Alice to send cards, and she has sent them, then obviously no refund is necessary. Alice just needs to ban Bob from using the service again. In the case of Tinder banning someone, they should automatically cancel the subscription because the customer no longer have access to what they're paying for, and if there's a pa…