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

441–450 of 684 posts

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

#441

Post by unabridged »

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).

Instead of regulation, I'd like to see the government offer a free service. A digital commons. In this case the public library version of Tinder, with strict rules of who can be banned and where everyone is treated equally.

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

#442

Post by wolverine876 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #393
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…

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…

> The details of these things is incredibly important and can't be solved by some sort of generic market vs government debate.

> most of our regulations are poorly designed and have been captured by corporate interests

Isn't the second comment a generic statement? Do you have specific data? I agree that the details are incredibly important.

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

#443

Post by cassac »

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.

Doesn’t the government already do that all the time? Copyright, trademarks, spectrum auctions, right of ways, public run utilities, private government projects bid out to single entities, eminent domain, licensing etc etc are all tools the government uses to mess with the market. It is not free and hasn’t been for awhile and I’m not sure any of it has to do with what’s best for the people.

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

#444

Post by josephcsible »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #409
lolinder wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't this how we just end up in the same situation we have with ISPs? It doesn't matter that we have Comcast, Cox, and Charter if any given area only has one of them.

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

#445

Post by kodah »

arbitrage wrote: post #431
kodah wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

I didn't take it as fighting, so I'm not sure what the hostility is about. I was making clear that by highlighting men's experiences I am in no way invalidating women's experiences. That and putting some emphasis on the fact that shitty systems result in shitty TOS.

> Maybe it's not all Tinder's fault you're not having much luck.

This is an unnecessary and unfortunate remark.

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

#446

Post by josephcsible »

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…

Okay, how about instead of coming into effect immediately after reaching some market share level, it comes into effect 1 year after you first reach that level?

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

#448

Post by guerrilla »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #428
guerrilla wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alright, keep that goal post moving then. In the meantime, I'll go with the best we got.

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

#449

Post by dragonwriter »

mongol wrote: post #398
vladvasiliu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've answered your own question: probably never. Because whatever company would apply said commoditized data science would have the same incentives as Tinder and the rest. So except for some "open source" or otherwise "community-driven" effort, I don't think we'll ever see it. The issue with setting this up in your garage is that for such an app to work, you need to have many users. And to have many users,…

Imagine if a company had this business idea: If you get married to someone we introduce to you, you pay us 10000 USD. Else you pay us nothing. Would not that raise the bar?

It would really encourage people not looking for marriage to use the app for dating, since their use would be free. It would, of course, also result in the site taking steps to eliminate them, maybe even tolerating false positives. In the end would it produce good results? Dunno.

(Also would add legal complications most dating sites, regardless of model, don't deal with because of the Statute of Frauds in relation to contracts in consideration of marriage.)

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

#450

Post by wolverine876 »

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.

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

How, if there is no competition?

Post reply on HN