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

521–530 of 684 posts

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

#521

Post by newprint »

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…

I met my current girlfriend on Match.com(US) in 2019. She was unemployed back then and we lived 2h+ hours apart. First 6 months of the relationship, she was unemployed. We are still together and now she has a job. I don't think unemployment should immediately be a no go for the relationship.

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

#522

Post by sebastianconcpt »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #303
sebastianconcpt wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how raw red pill truths get downvoted here. Some seem to prefer to send technical brutal honesty about the current state of sexual market under the rug.

Or maybe people just don’t want to fuck you. And maybe you aren’t entitled to anyone fucking you.

I find your interest in my sexual life as inappropriate as distracting while I'm learning this new shibari binding as my main sub girl is asking me to use it on her this weekend. Oh god, how she loves when I use rope on her. What were you saying?

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

#523

Post by jcadam »

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…

I met my wife when she tapped me on the shoulder in a public place and introduced herself. I just smiled and nodded and ended up with a date - I think I might have gotten my name out at some point -- not sure. She calls me by the correct name now, 20+ years later in any case.

Online dating sites/apps seem like they'd be a nightmare.

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

#524

Post by bloaf »

errcorrectcode wrote: post #489
samhw wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fundamental rule of conservatism is this:

>There must be an in-group that the law protects but does not bind, alongside an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.

That is why conservatives are so prickly about being regulated: to be bound by the rules is "proof" that they are no longer the in-group.

Your very assertion that the law can be applied fairly (to the point group membership is irrelevant) is a denial of the fundamental thesis of conservatism.

I agree that we should aspire to fairness and equality-before-the-rules, but there are too many people who do deeply believe that fundamental theorem to just deny and ignore.

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

#525

Post by colejohnson66 »

munk-a wrote: post #389
samhw wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, shadow banning has a legit use besides just taking people's money. It prevents genuine malicious actors from simply creating new accounts whenever they get banned. However, it becomes way more ethically complex when the service in question is a paid service.

Shadow banning is a legitimate tool when you assume that it is necessary for you to offer your services with the absolute lowest barrier to entry. There are plenty of other very reasonable approaches to prevent malicious actors from simply creating new accounts - the easiest of these is to attach a modest cost to account creation which is a solution that marketers absolutely loathe band thus has been casually discoun…

We're literally on a site that uses shadow banning. @dang has mentioned quite a few times.

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

#526

Post by IshKebab »

newprint wrote: post #521
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…

I met my current girlfriend on Match.com(US) in 2019. She was unemployed back then and we lived 2h+ hours apart. First 6 months of the relationship, she was unemployed. We are still together and now she has a job. I don't think unemployment should immediately be a no go for the relationship.

Yeah same. Nothing wrong with being unemployed.

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

#527

Post by jablongo »

It's worth pointing out that there is an explanation for this set of responses from tinder that makes complete sense and is relatively non-dystopian: Someone submitted a complaint about the author from his past usage of tinder, maybe even one specifically designed to get him banned. Tinder would never disclose the cause in that case in order to protect the identity of the complainant, nor should they be expected to. But in either case they should not have continued to charge him...

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

#528

Post by selfhoster11 »

Majestic121 wrote: post #417
selfhoster11 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pretty common to use Tinder for hook ups during holidays

This is a specialised use case, just as I mentioned. Most people aren't on holiday at any given time.

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

#529

Post by selfhoster11 »

josephcsible wrote: post #444
selfhoster11 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Building an ISP requires investing in infrastructure. A dating app needs a UX designer and a few cloud instances. There's a world of difference in the required outlay when building a competitor.

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

#530

Post by netizen-936824 »

sircastor wrote: post #411
netizen-936824 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like it took care of adding plastics and PFAS to the ocean, yea? Sometimes regulation is needed

In theory, if this was considered a big enough problem, yes - the market would resolve this. And by "big enough problem" we have to remember that market-driven economies respond to market demand forces. Plastic in the ocean is definitely a huge problem, but it's not a market problem - not yet. When consumers are willing to pay to get plastics out of the ocean, hundreds of companies will appear eager to solve the prob…

So when does it become a market problem? Before or after we lose biodiversity on the planet?
Post reply on HN