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

421–430 of 684 posts

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

#421

Post by gok »

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).

How is internet dating an uncompetitive industry? There are dozens of competitors. The biggest (Tinder) has barely 30% marketshare.

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

#422

Post by karpierz »

SllX wrote: post #408
dbingham wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Command economy" and "unregulated free market" is a false dichotomy.

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

#423

Post by kodah »

arbitrage wrote: post #355
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.

What I said doesn't invalidate women's experiences. I was highlighting that men have to pay for said shitty experience, and the system is designed that way intentionally. The heavy TOS is because men and women act out because of that shitty system. It's a cycle.

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

#424

Post by kuschku »

Mezzie wrote: post #232
tarboreus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not single and haven't been fora long time, but my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps, so it's harder to find people in the real world. Not impossible, obviously, but getting banned from Tinder is kind of a big deal. (Also all these apps are owned by th…

If you're gay, this is true. Especially if you don't live in a large city. I've just given up on finding a wife/partner. My options are just... bad.

From my experience (being a lesbian myself), I found my fiancé on a discord server, and most of our friends also found their partners either through LGBT bars, LGBT online communities, or through art communities, tumblr, deviantart, etc ^^

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

#425

Post by selfhoster11 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #354
mysecretaccount wrote: post #344

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…

If you're suddenly a million-user service, you should easily have enough revenue to implement the regulations during a grace period.

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

#426

Post by OkayPhysicist »

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…

If you have automated rule enforcement, then you already have a formal specification of your rules, and informing the user of what rule they have broken should be trivial.

If you have humans doing the bans manually, then you already have a human in the loop.

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

#427

Post by butokai »

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?

Not sure what you mean by this, but Tinder's parent company controls several well known dating services (OkCupid, Meetic, Twoo and many more)

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

#428

Post by JohnHaugeland »

guerrilla wrote: post #347
vajrabum wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

only the ones with valid statistics count

some guy dug up a bunch of studies done on abductions by satanists in the 1990s. remember that, from 60 minutes?

the punchline was there had never actually been such an abduction, but there were 30+ studies.

and that's replicated a lot.

the quality of the replication matters.

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

#429

Post by selfhoster11 »

fourseventy wrote: post #365
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).

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

"Free market" is why our planet is dying, so no, I don't think so. Some regulation is needed.

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

#430

Post by shirleyquirk »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #388
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…

>if you're staring at your phone constantly waiting for box to message you I may be unfamiliar with the terminology, but can you please explain what this means? What is "box" in this context?

I think they meant 'bots'?
Post reply on HN