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

Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

paulefou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 684 posts

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

#341

Post by shadowgovt »

siliconc0w wrote: post #323

IMO, if your market share is bigger than ${some number}, you shouldn't be able to deny service without a documented reason, it should have some sort of time-to-live (i.e 1 year), and there should be an appeals process. In a functioning marketplace, companies would be naturally incentivized to care about customers but that stops working in uncompetitive industries (which currently describes most of the economy).

This rule would functionally kill small Internet service provision and build the biggest moat around the incumbent providers that has ever been handed to them.

... which may, indeed, be the right solution.

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

#342

Post by Invictus0 »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #310
pratik661 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People can't handle truth and I'd rather not be downvoted to oblivion. Suffice to say, the american dating market is heavily geared towards attractive white men over 6 ft tall. They better also be a millionaire if you're in the bay area. I'd suggest traveling like I have to southeast Asia, Europe and latin America for extended periods of time and see for yourself.

What you're actually saying is that you are unable to compete in the American dating market, and so you're moving to other less competitive dating markets where you might be more highly valued. Obviously since this is HN we can't consider the female perspective, but if we consider the female perspective, the American dating market is probably pretty good because it offers a great number of attractive white men over 6 ft tall.

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

#343

Post by TameAntelope »

vidarh wrote: post #218
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.

Other than Coffee Meets Bagel which I've not heard about before, those are all - like Tinder - owned by Match. So while they may be options in some market, I'd be curious how long before they share bans between services.

I don't think the author is claiming to be banned from every dating app, and I don't think Match Group connects the profiles of users across its owned platforms, so it's not really relevant that Tinder is owned by Match Group for the purposes of what happened to the author.

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

#344

Post by mysecretaccount »

shadowgovt wrote: post #341
siliconc0w wrote: post #323

IMO, if your market share is bigger than ${some number}, you shouldn't be able to deny service without a documented reason, it should have some sort of time-to-live (i.e 1 year), and there should be an appeals process. In a functioning marketplace, companies would be naturally incentivized to care about customers but that stops working in uncompetitive industries (which currently describes most of the economy).

This rule would functionally kill small Internet service provision and build the biggest moat around the incumbent providers that has ever been handed to them. ... which may, indeed, be the right solution.

As long as ${some number} is large enough it will not impact "small ISP" at all.

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

#345

Post by munk-a »

svalee wrote: post #138
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…

Yeah, they specifically mention that at the bottom of the screen[1] when they ban you [1] https://paulefou.com/cancel.jpg

It's really pleasant that they use Dark UI patterns to try and make that text as ignorable as possible - fading, making it small, putting it in the margin and putting a hard divider between it and the primary announcement. It's sort of a master class in how to use Dark UI patterns - I'm just disappointed they didn't fade it even more, put an ad between the announcement and the context, include a webmaster@ link somewhere in there and italicize the text. If they did all that it'd look entirely like a TOS disclaimer - but they tried their best at least.

We seriously need better consumer protection against Dark UI tactics.

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

#346

Post by standardUser »

newyankee wrote: post #20

FWIW I seldom got any likes on Tinder in USA. I would consider myself in the top 10% of my own country in height and looks but not the same in USA. I realized that US women do not consider me attractive at least based on limited data that a Tinder card shows.

Tweak your profile, try other apps, and accept that the funnel is going to be massive.

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

#347

Post by guerrilla »

vajrabum wrote: post #314
guerrilla wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been shown plenty of other places, including by OKCupid, which why I qualified with "kind of thing." It's common knowledge at this point.

There's lots of common 'knowledge' in social psychology including studies done by serious reputable researchers that turns out to not be so. This is a big enough issue that it's termed the "replication crisis". So, yes, maybe. Maybe not.

Being shown by a lot of studies means its been replicated a lot.

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

#348

Post by klyrs »

siliconc0w wrote: post #323

IMO, if your market share is bigger than ${some number}, you shouldn't be able to deny service without a documented reason, it should have some sort of time-to-live (i.e 1 year), and there should be an appeals process. In a functioning marketplace, companies would be naturally incentivized to care about customers but that stops working in uncompetitive industries (which currently describes most of the economy).

What if spammers outnumber honest users 10:1? I don't think there's a simple solution to any of this.

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

#350

Post by aenis »

zionic wrote: post #205
polote wrote: post #44

It has always been like that on Tinder. My phone number can't create a new account for example (never receive the confirmation code). That's called shadowban in the case of OP. Bumble started doing the same practices a year ago (which makes sense as they have the same founder) But they are not 100% wrong, Tinder is not here to make people meet each other. They are here to make money and people don't pay because they…

>This has nothing to do with Big tech. If you want to meet people don't use Tinder, As I said in my comment up-post, Tinder has a near-absolute monopoly in my area. If you're not on Tinder you basically don't exist on the local dating market. Yes, the future sucks.

Ugh. This sucks. I cant imagine deciding to date or even meet someone whom I only know by their app profile.

Glad my dating days are over.

Post reply on HN