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

351–360 of 684 posts

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

#351

Post by munk-a »

_fat_santa wrote: post #339
callamdelaney wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they shadow ban you which seems to happen quite often. They'll happily accept your money in this instance - it sounds like in the article above this is what happened.

Hmm, say they did shadow ban him but continued to charge him. Wouldn't they be open to fraud in this case? You could make the case that you paid for services that were not rendered.

I think it'd be reasonable to conclude that services weren't rendered - even if I'm totally certain they've got some BS in their TOS somewhere that specifically called out that it would be within the bounds of the service offering to take your money and give you only the fake experience of being a tinder user.

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

#352

Post by ouid »

klyrs wrote: post #348
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.

"reason: user was spam"

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

#354

Post by shadowgovt »

mysecretaccount wrote: post #344
shadowgovt wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the thing about being an Internet startup... You never know when you're going to explode and suddenly jump from a ten-thousand-user service to a milliion-user service.

So supporting this would require a company to take all manner of new precautions that companies currently don't (circuit-breaker on the new account creation system? But then your growth stalls and your potential customers go to a competitor instead, and you don't blow up into a YouTube or a Twitter like YouTube and Twitter did).

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

#355

Post by arbitrage »

kodah wrote: post #254

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…

I'll let you in on a secret ... women's experiences on Tinder aren't that great, either.

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

#356

Post by samhw »

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.

Do you mean because those 'small Internet service providers' would be included in his 'larger than $MARKET_SHARE' group, or because it would mean no one was kicked out of the incumbent services and therefore there would be fewer new customers available?

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

#357

Post by Invictus0 »

TameAntelope wrote: post #334
giantg2 wrote: post #19

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.

I know it's popular to rail against tech companies, but I don't think there's a world in which we are entitled to access to Tinder or any other company's services. Tinder does not hold anything even remotely resembling a monopoly (no, Match does not own every dating app, just many of them) on the dating app space, we need to stop throwing that word around so casually. You're diluting the concept by trying to apply it…

> I don't think there's a world in which we are entitled to access to Tinder or any other company's services.

The world you're looking for is China, where without WeChat you may as well not exist.

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

#358

Post by goldfeld »

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).

Phew! And here I was thinking the problem would lie in using it! mercifully big tech is saved.

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

#360

Post by soperj »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #289
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First you'd need consent to actually ask the question, and prior to that, you'd need consent to speak with the person (you'd have to get that in writing).
Post reply on HN