361–370 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Does their ToS say they can terminate it without notice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thank you for the tip, even watching this thread. I'm tempted to argue with people. But I'm not, I left my phone at home and went for a walk. It's very peaceful to not have to argue with the entire world every single second of your existence. I'm hoping going forward to have phone free weekends where I just shut the thing off and listen to a simple FM radio on my walks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Then at least cancel his subscription. I can imagine a scenario where you need to login to cancel your subscription, but can't login because your banned. A while back Tinder was trying to bypass the Google Play subscription system so this is very possible.
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).
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).
Is Tinder a dating service or social media company? If Facebook starts offering a dating feature in app and becomes the biggest player in the dating space, which market is facebook in? Both? If both, does all of facebook's market cap/DAU/whatever metric we settle on to measure market share get fully applied to both markets or split in some way?
Basically, I think implementing "if $market_share > n" is not a trivial problem that will be litigated to death. The companies with the best lawyers will win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
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…
1. If Alice expected users to send 2 cards a day and charges a per day rate appropriate to that usage and Bob floods her with 1000 requests a day for a week then that mistake is wholly on her. If you have a per use cost and you charge per day you need to add some kind of rate limiting.
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).
Who decides which “markets” a company is in and measures their market share in those markets? How is market share measured? Is Tinder a dating service or social media company? If Facebook starts offering a dating feature in app and becomes the biggest player in the dating space, which market is facebook in? Both? If both, does all of facebook's market cap/DAU/whatever metric we settle on to measure market share get f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?