431–440 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
This is trivially solvable if creating an account required an in-person verification, like when you go into a bank to open an account. Since it's not mandatory, anybody who does so is beaten by anyone who doesn't (worse is better). So we should make it mandatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my understanding is that if you're single you can't really opt out of these apps, practically speaking. This is definitely not true. > Even the norms around dating, picking people up in bars, etc. are changing because of these apps This is true. > so it's harder to find people in the real world. This is sort of true. By not using a dating app, a single person is relegating themselves to how things were pre-app. Som…
After checking reality, online dating's the #1 way people meet, and its market share (>50%) is growing. [0] [1] [0] https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-w... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
1. The parent is advocating for a powerful form of command over the economy.
2. I am not advocating for lawless markets.
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…
Sure, I am not a libertarian or anything like that. I'm all for good regulation and strong government. However, making good laws and regulations is not easy! The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate. And while I do think government has a role to play, most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate inter…
How do we know they didn't violate the terms of service or community guidelines? It's entirely possible to do so simply by uploading photos and filling out your profile. Since they provide neither, it's impossible to tell whether the decision is justified or not. There are plenty of things I can think of that they could have done that would have required zero interactions but been in violation of the community guidel…
They might have broken a rule without realizing it, but no one is even willing to say what one.
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…
Let's not pretend like this is an impossible task. Some EU countries already have laws that base regulations on company size and number of customers.
Measuring the size of a company is a lot easier: you pick some metric (employees, revenue, profit, customers, etc...) and apply it to all companies.
Measuring market share requires that you categorize all companies into "markets," which think is pretty subjective. Is Jet Brains an IDE company? A software company? How about Apple? If multiple, are metrics split?
Whatever rules you pick, they're going to be biased towards some companies (including some big ones not popular on HN) and against other companies (including some companies HN loves).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "super attractive" look like? > For girls rule #1 is "be a girl" Not at all. Women can have just as much of a hard time as men, especially for certain ethnicities.
> What does "super attractive" look like? Basically be a model > Women can have just as much of a hard time as men, especially for certain ethnicities. Can't find the study, but black women are actually having a tougher time than all others women to get matches on dating apps. But this is still nothing compared to the attention guys get
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170217052152/https://theblog.o...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2018/01/09/575352051/least-desirable-how...
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.