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

481–490 of 684 posts

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

#481

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

giantg2 wrote: post #19

This is basically the paradigm of any monopolistic or near monopolistic system. You can screw over a small minority without provoking a real response so long as you are appeasing or distracting the majority. Big tech, traditional companies, and even government.

How is this an example of monopoly? Are you positing that Tinder is the only way to meet other people? That seems insane. Not only are there are other dating services (yes, I know the parent company of Tinder also owns bumble, but there are still plenty of others), you can also meet people on other social media apps. This is all in addition to something called "real life" –– through friends, your workplace, or getting involved in groups and activities.

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

#482

Post by LandR »

csa wrote: post #111
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…

> 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…

Dating exclusively by apps might be reality for the younger US populations.

There was a thread on Reddit a few months ago where people were asking bad places for men to approach women. It was basically

Work

School

Gym

Church

Any place you go for hobby

Public transport

Shops

Bars

Anywhere outside at night

Parks

The consensus was basically the women on this Reddit thread don't want men approaching them in any way whatsoever that isnt a dating app. All alternative s were creepy. Now Reddit is mostly young and American, so who knows.

Dating in the US seems crazy.

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

#483

Post by wolverine876 »

SllX wrote: post #473
wolverine876 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not granting monopolies is a start Monopolies are generally not granted, except in exceptional circumstances. The US government didn't grant Microsoft a monopoly in PC operating systems. > Proving a monopoly exists or are forming could be another way to do so, but so far they have recently made lackluster arguments in Courts of Law on that front. What are you referring to?

Yes, yes they do. I listed three examples of what a government granted monopoly looks like. Copyright, trademark and patents don’t exist naturally, and they’re unenforceable without the Rule of Law. > What are you referring to? Most recently (that I can think of): the suit the Feds filed against Facebook that was tossed out of court.

Those are temporary monopolies of a technology or creative work, not monopolies of a market.

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

#484

Post by 999900000999 »

RHSeeger wrote: post #377
vmception wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reason…

There are a few excellent reasons to never get involved with someone who doesn't have a job.

The first one is the vast majority of divorces are due to financial issues, my last partner left both of her husbands because they weren't making enough money. Her first husband didn't really want to work and they ended up moving in with her parents. A close family member had to break up with her husband since he wasn't working and kept overdrafting the joint account

The second reason, is this person who doesn't work is probably being supported by someone else.

Their sugar daddy's going to want to hurt you. I made the mistake once when I was younger of going out with a girl who didn't have a job, and this is basically what happened.

Finally, people with jobs tend to be much more straightforward.

You have a right to whatever dating criteria you choose. Some people won't date someone whose below a certain height. It's easier to fill out a job application than to become taller.

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

#485

Post by caminante »

Invictus0 wrote: post #335
caminante wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent didn't say it's not possible, and your situation is anecdotal. If over 50% of people (and growing) say their relationship started on OLD, it's easy to say you're limiting your options by not participating [0] [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...

> If over 50% of people (and growing) say their relationship started on OLD, it's easy to say you're limiting your options by not participating A does not in any way imply B. I strongly doubt that a non-negligible number of OLD users restrict themselves to using only OLD and automatically reject in-person advances. OP's "options" are still the same as before: all the singles in his physical meatspace.

> A does not in any way imply B.

Huh? What are [A] and [B] in this situation?

> I strongly doubt that a non-negligible number of OLD users restrict themselves to using only OLD and automatically reject in-person advances. OP's "options" are still the same as before: all the singles in his physical meatspace.

You're assuming that a non-trivial number of people who use OLD aren't exclusive to OLD. Who's taking issue with that?

OTOH, saying that one's set of available dates is unchanged by foregoing OLD is deeply flawed. You even mention "physical meatspace" which OLD directly overcomes.

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

#486

Post by SllX »

cassac wrote: post #443
SllX wrote: post #408

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.

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.

The government does a lot of things that fall into a few categories: tax authority, police powers, market participation for its own activities, and even granting (or reserving) monopoly powers. Also missing from your list: USPS has a monopoly on First-class mail in the United States.

Some of these are just, useful, bad, abhorrent, unnecessary, necessary, or outmoded.

None of that falls into commanding the economy. We’re not even strangers to command economies: the wartime powers of the Federal government are vast, and were most powerfully executed in World War II.

I would argue that exactly what the parent suggested, in respond to the GP falls exactly into that bucket of ideas for commanding the economy. It’s not a just nor good use of Government, no matter how Democratic.

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

#487

Post by kelseyfrog »

soperj wrote: post #360
kelseyfrog wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touch-consent is as easy to do as asking a question. Not really sure what the big deal is.

First you'd need consent to actually ask the question, and prior to that, you'd need consent to speak with the person (you'd have to get that in writing).

Not sure where you're getting that from. I would like to assume positive intent and the best interpretation of your position, but it's really difficult to not read this as "If we have to get consent for touching someone, then we have to get consent for all interactions. Therefore touch-consent is non-viable." Please help me understand how you aren't saying that.

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

#488

Post by 9935c101ab17a66 »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #464
TameAntelope wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's popular to rail against tech companies, but I don't think there's a world in which we are entitled to access to Tinder or any other company's services. Tinder does not hold anything even remotely resembling a monopoly (no, Match does not own every dating app, just many of them) on the dating app space, we need to stop throwing that word around so casually. You're diluting the concept by trying to apply it…

"or any other company's services" is a bit to wide, the obvious biggest counter example to this would be utilities, everyone is somewhat entitled to access to their power company's services. But going outside utilities, what if I live on an island that is serviced by a single ferry company, shouldn't I be entitled to paying service? And on the meaning of monopoly, I believe it is fair to describe the "network affect"…

> "or any other company's services" is a bit to wide, the obvious biggest counter example to this would be utilities, everyone is somewhat entitled to access to their power company's services. But going outside utilities, what if I live on an island that is serviced by a single ferry company, shouldn't I be entitled to paying service?

True, your 'island ferry example' is a monopoly. It is also not at all analogous to this situation and Tinder in general.

I'm no expert, but I don't think you understand what the 'network affect (sip)' is, as it does not apply to US Railways at all, and is a relatively new term that only arose in the 1970s. That aside, your example doesn't survive further scrutiny because railways were often the only practical way of moving between two generally public places — cities or towns. With Tinder though, they are providing you access to their own private network of users. Your example is like saying the monorail in disney is a monopoly, but that doesn't make any sense, since it's for transporting you within their own park.

Lastly, Tinder is not the one and only way to meet people. Yes, they have are of the most widely-used companies in the space. But there are others. And, you know, people can still meet in real life — through friends, at work, at activities or interest-based groups. On other social media like Twitter, et al.

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

#489

Post by errcorrectcode »

samhw wrote: post #458
errcorrectcode wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inverted totalitarianism symptoms may include shutting an individual out of a large portion of their life for no real reason, for a misunderstanding, or for daring to challenge corporate power. Often this occurs with minimal or no human intervention, and lack of due process becomes normalized. Welcome to Dystopian Hell, population: everyone not digitally cancelled.

Other symptoms include: a remarkable tendency of people to say "oh, that's OK, they're just coming for the conservatives".

There's something to that, and I skew towards democratic socialist. Doing nothing because it appears to target a perceived "foe" attribute or other demonstrates a lack of integrity in the bystander. Fair is fair, while selective impact games build resentment. One love and so on.

We have to get past putting people in boxes for arbitrary disagreement/animosity. Formalized politics must be made obsolete.

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

#490

Post by danbruc »

caminante wrote: post #161
helloworld11 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but bullshit. I've personally never once in my life used a single dating app and have met plenty of dates and love interests the old fashioned way, by interacting with them in the real world after random encounters (bars, events etc) or through circles of friends. Most of the people I know met their own love interests in the same way. I don't live in some backward country with little app use either. What…

Parent didn't say it's not possible, and your situation is anecdotal. If over 50% of people (and growing) say their relationship started on OLD, it's easy to say you're limiting your options by not participating [0] [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/06/10-facts-ab...

If over 50% of people (and growing) say their relationship started on OLD [...]

I just skimmed the article, but it seems to say that even among the youngest age group only 48% have used dating apps and only 17% were in resulting relationship.

Post reply on HN