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

401–410 of 684 posts

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

#401

Post by vidarh »

TameAntelope wrote: post #343
vidarh wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you read my last line? I did not suggest they do so now, but I do genuinely wonder how long until they do. It's a big issue that they have been allowed to control this market the way they do. It's somewhat tolerable today because they've avoided taking steps to call nsolidate them . But also only for that reason.

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

#402

Post by aeternum »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #375
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).

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

They don't even need to be broken up. Anti-competitive mergers just need to be prevented.

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

#403

Post by ball_of_lint »

antiterra wrote: post #383
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).

Unfortunately there are scenarios where providing a documented reason or appeal is a vulnerability, illegal or both. A too-clear disclosure gives bad actors information on how to circumvent controls around safety, abuse, and fraud. If the reason an account is deleted includes some sort of KYC/Money Laundering issue, OFAC style sanction or child porn, then there can be legal obligation, with severe penalty, to both re…

Although that might be applicable to businesses that let people deal with money, why would any of those be an issue for Tinder?

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

#404

Post by fencepost »

klyrs wrote: post #381

Curious what OP may have done "wrong", I read a bit of the Tinder TOS and found this juicy nugget: > YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TINDER DOES NOT CONDUCT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ITS MEMBERS OR OTHERWISE INQUIRE INTO THE BACKGROUND OF ITS MEMBERS. TINDER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE CONDUCT OR COMPATIBILITY OF MEMBERS. TINDER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT – AND YOU AUTHORIZE TINDER TO CONDUCT – ANY CR…

That combination seems not unreasonable - basically saying that you should have no expectation that they've performed a background check [and incurred costs] but that they reserve the right to perform them on any user at their own discretion should they decide to incur those costs.

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

#405

Post by vidarh »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #280
vidarh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is last time I used Tinder it was clear they're totally unable or unwilling to deal with all the women using Tinder for "business".

That makes sense if in the USA since prostitution is illegal in 49 states.

I think you missed my point, which is that Tinder does seemingly very little to stop it. Even in markets where it is legal, like in the UK where I am, it is actively detrimental to the user experience for most users.

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

#406

Post by t-writescode »

dvt wrote: post #288
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.

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.

Ah yes, West LA is a representation of the rest of the world, and to people with incredibly busy, corporate lives.

I've heard stories of lesbian women, especially, FLYING ACROSS THE COUNTRY to meet another person they have interest in because it's that hard to find matching personalities.

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

#407

Post by matsemann »

shadowgovt wrote: post #386
samhw wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean because a company tends to explode from "smaller than $MARKET_SHARE" to "larger than $MARKET_SHARE" in a discontinuous fashion. So since a company can't really predict when it will happen, every company providing service would need to prep from the ground up to provide the described level of relatively non-automated high-touch support this proposal describes. It'd raise the cost to build a startup. ... not to…

Same argument used against gdpr all the time, and proven false all the time. It's easy to be small and compliant.

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

#408

Post by SllX »

dbingham wrote: post #387
jaredklewis wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A democratically elected government. Look, there is no such thing as a "natural market" that can keep the power of the actors in it in check. The internet was the closest thing to a perfect market that has ever existed and all it has produced is overpowered monopoly after overpowered monopoly. If we want a free society, we don't get that by handing power over to the markets. We get that by building the most responsiv…

So what you want is a command economy?

Nah, I’ll pass. Markets are made up of people, they’re not just some abstraction. Governments have good uses, but determining who is participating in what market and how much market share they have or are allowed to have isn’t one of them.

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

#409

Post by selfhoster11 »

lolinder wrote: post #397
thomastjeffery wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What would it mean to break up Tinder? How do you partition a company that only has one product?

Partition it geographically. If they want to compete in certain cities/regions/countries where the user base exceeds a certain number, they must spin off subsidiaries for that area. I can't imagine people looking for a date on the other end of the country outside of very specific circumstances.
Post reply on HN