Live data from Hacker News

Tinder just permabanned me or the problem with big tech

paulefou.com

371–380 of 684 posts

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

#371
post #45

This is presented as a problem with "big tech", but I don't think most people would consider Tinder (Match Group) to be big tech? Instead, this kind of problem where you get flagged with no explanation or recourse seems to be common to consumer tech of all but the smallest scale. It's just very expensive to provide high quality individual support.

Scale/expense is a reasonable excuse when the services are free. Not when you're paying.

It's a "Big Tech" problem. Lots of people have experienced getting randomly banned from services with no obvious cause, and no way to get any resolution. I'm banned from AirBNB for example. No clue why and there was nothing that could have triggered it, because I hadn't used the service for like over six months when the ban happened, there were no disputes or other problems with hosts and my last host review had been glowing. They didn't even tell me it'd occurred, but they had been sending emails thanking me for being a part of the "community" just weeks before. Then I tried to log in, got a verification screen, entered the code and was told the account was terminated. Filed an appeal, got no useful response and that was the end of it.

If it was a free service I'd understand, but I've paid good money to AirBNB over the years. If you pay you expect to be treated like a customer, not an enemy, but SV tech firms have all copied the culture of Facebook/Twitter/Google. They seem to forget that when people give money they expect some sort of customer relationship as a consequence.

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

#372
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The lesbian dating market is a bit different. ;)

haha thats probably very true. I'd say don't give up!. travel as well, it'll enrich your life and make your more interesting to that special someone when you finally meet her. I wouldn't be surprised if you meet her in your travels.

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

#373

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…

Humans

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inst…

Or the simpler solution: Once your revenue goes over the threshold, you have a period of 6/12 months to go into compliance, or something similar.

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

#375

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).

You're almost there. Companies that aren't competitive should be broken up.

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

#376

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.

Says the person in the comments of HN...

So?

There is a difference, between going online conscious, when you turn on the computer - or a stressful always being half online with the phone in hand or pocket.

I have a smartphone, but I regulary have it off for longer periods. That helps.

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

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet forming priors based on experience gained in a classic multi arm bandit thompson sampling approach with appropriate exploitation exploration tradeoff is generally the dominant strategy in any static unfamiliar space. Alternatively, contextualizing things into niche stats frameworks doesn't make you correct, or sound intelligent.

The point was to say it without saying it, to provoke introspection in their arbitrary associations. The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job. And yet, this person chose that specific aspect of the relationship and elevated that to relevance for other relationships. Even further, they are applying this to people in other cities and geographies, amplify…

> The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job.

Maybe not. However,

- If they haven't been able to identify what the real issue _is_, AND

- Avoiding dating people that don't have a day job limits (or completely prevents) dating people that do have the real issue, AND

- Avoiding said people doesn't limit the number of available people to date below a reasonable threshold, THEN

- Using "doesn't have a day job" as a filter seems to be a reasonable compromise for them.

Sure, it may prevent them from finding the "best" match, since there could be a person without a job that doesn't exhibit the real problem. But it's possible that removing that filter would cause so much wasted time (on dates with bad matches) that the odds of meeting a good match, nonetheless the best match, as significantly diminished (as is QoL).

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

#378

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).

I disagree, I think the free market will take care of this on its own.

Just like it took care of adding plastics and PFAS to the ocean, yea?

Sometimes regulation is needed

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

#379
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess because in real life, even if you dont look super attractive, you can still charm partners by the way you talk and act. You can be funny, come across as trustworthy etc. You can not do that on tinder.

Yes, this. If you’re trying to find a partner on a platform where matches are determined solely by physical attraction, you’re gonna have a hard time if you’re not physically attractive. Know what Tinder is, and be self-aware enough to know if it’s not for you.

The attractive types will also have it difficult. The matches will likely be attractive physically, but that hardly guarantees a true match. I know lots of attractive people that struggle to find a partner (and instead move from one one night stand to another). I think at some point it must get pretty depressing and toxic.

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

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I completely agree, if you're a straight woman (especially white), I'd def recommend staying in the united states.

My advice is specifically for men because thats my lived experience.

Post reply on HN