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

561–570 of 684 posts

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

#561

Post by ska »

throwaway14356 wrote: post #544
ska wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nd can definitively say it's the best decision a person can make for their mental well being. No, you can only definitively say it's was the best decision you made for your mental well being. With the plausible suggestion that it might be good for some others, also.

for what it is worth it was great being the last person around without a smart phone. I dont know how old you are but people use to be alone with their own thoughts. Amazing things happen if you ponder situations until satisfied with your own conclusions. the delay made for wonderful long form conversations. exchanging text like we are doing here doesnt build relationships either. if i would die in the next 20 min yo…

Versions of this comment were common when radio first was introduced. And television. Etc. It's fine to feel nostalgia for some aspects of past interaction of course, but a mistake to read too much into it. Generally an area to be aware of recency bias.

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

#562

Post by smsm42 »

emacsen wrote: post #140
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 don't know what happened in this situation, but generally refunding money for TOS violations is a bad idea. Let me explain why. Imagine that Alice runs a service where you can send people greeting cards. Bob decides he's going to use this service to cause trouble and instead of normal greeting cards, he sends people messages with hate speech, such as their race, their religion, says he hoped they get cancer, and so…

Bob should certainly get a refund, prorated with reasonable costs for the actual services. In case service costs are spread over time and many users (i.e. you sell subscriptions to a service that costs $TONS_OF_MONEY to set up but almost nothing to maintain) some reasonable part can be charged - e.g. a monthly subscription cost - but charging beyond that, or maintaining subscription indefinitely, certainly would not be reasonable. Bob being an asshole and doing bad things is not relevant here - you can't legally rob assholes. You can refuse to do business with them, but that's it, otherwise the assholes have the same rights as everybody else.

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

#563

Post by standardUser »

ravenstine wrote: post #541
standardUser wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a side note - Instagram accounts are nice because they offer social proof. A lot of people feel more comfortable meeting a stranger one-on-one if they have some idea that the person has a life, friends, etc. As for the rest, it sounds like speculative nonsense. I date and know a lot of people who actively date. There are more and better options today to meet more and better people - not less. Not by a longshot.

I think everyone knows that. Personally, I don't spend any time taking countless photographs of myself and my buddies eating and traveling. That's not me, and I think it's a little sad that people can't have any trust in strangers to the extent that they must look up a curated PR profile of them and believe that. Yes, the world has changed. That doesn't mean that everyone is better off that way just because 80+% will…

"I think it's a little sad that people can't have any trust in strangers"

For women, dating is a process of meeting a larger, stronger person who is a member of a demographic responsible for nearly all sexual violence. If they want a little social proof before meeting a strange man alone, I fully understand. Obviously this goes both (all) ways, but is a bigger concern for women (at least the many women I have discussed this with over the years).

Sorry to be disrespectful. I was specifically talking about the idea that it is no longer possible/acceptable to meet people in person. Do you truly believe this? As I said, I know a lot of people who date actively, and they do still meet people when out and about. Sometimes it's a friend of a friend, sometimes a random person at a bar. One of my last serious relationships started when we met at a wedding. A good friend of mine seems to find dates by just stepping out the door! She's cute, but it's not like men are constantly fawning over her - she just tends to chat with strangers and sometimes that leads to dates! So I see this so much in my everyday life I find it strange when people (especially people who admit they are not dating in the current era) make claims about how dating does and does not work these days.

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

#564

Post by TameAntelope »

vidarh wrote: post #401
TameAntelope wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the author is claiming to be banned from every dating app, and I don't think Match Group connects the profiles of users across its owned platforms, so it's not really relevant that Tinder is owned by Match Group for the purposes of what happened to the author.

Did you read my last line? I did not suggest they do so now, but I do genuinely wonder how long until they do. It's a big issue that they have been allowed to control this market the way they do. It's somewhat tolerable today because they've avoided taking steps to call nsolidate them . But also only for that reason.

> It's a big issue that they have been allowed to control this market the way they do.

I don't think that's true. Tinder doesn't control the dating app market, nor would it be a problem, per se, if they did.

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

#565

Post by binarysolo »

behnamoh wrote: post #546
knubie wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Could this have something to do with subscribing through the App Store? Maybe there is something in Apple's ToS, or some limitation in their billing API that prevents them from doing this.

I stopped paying for dating apps as soon as I realized tinder, Bumble, and Match constantly try to "lure" me into paying for subscriptions. It happened many times that I would get notifications about new matches/likes just moments after midnight when my subscription plan ended. I found it statistically unlikely that people only liked my profile right after my plan is finished.

Assuming it's not outright foul play, it's prob more likely that the matching services intentionally boost your profile gets better reach/impressions as that's a +EV play, and reduce your profile reach when you're subscribed long-term.

To carry this thought exercise more, someone structuring this system could also treat hot/responsive/engaged profiles as an asset of retention and intentionally matchmake the results to optimize for a system to be engaged (vs to matchmake two people who find love and unsubscribe after).

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

#566

Post by TomSwirly »

ahtihn wrote: post #553
onion2k wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how cancellations for subscriptions or refunds for services work though. If Bob has paid Alice to send cards, and she has sent them, then obviously no refund is necessary. Alice just needs to ban Bob from using the service again. In the case of Tinder banning someone, they should automatically cancel the subscription because the customer no longer have access to what they're paying for, and if there's a pa…

> Companies should not be allowed to issue 'punishment' to customers. Why not? Contracts with penalties are very common. Subscriptions should be cancelled when an account is banned but it's not obvious to me why there should be a refund. Subscription services usually don't allow for partial refunds when you cancel. If you force companies to refund in case of a ban, you need to force them to allow cancellation at any…

So let me get this straight.

You think a contract where one party can unilaterally cancel, present no evidence to anyone, and keep the money paid is somehow fair and just?

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

#567

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

TomSwirly wrote: post #566
ahtihn wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies should not be allowed to issue 'punishment' to customers. Why not? Contracts with penalties are very common. Subscriptions should be cancelled when an account is banned but it's not obvious to me why there should be a refund. Subscription services usually don't allow for partial refunds when you cancel. If you force companies to refund in case of a ban, you need to force them to allow cancellation at any…

So let me get this straight. You think a contract where one party can unilaterally cancel, present no evidence to anyone, and keep the money paid is somehow fair and just?

It goes both ways-- do we think a contract with a fixed guaranteed term can be canceled with refund simply because the consumer decided to violate the terms of service?

This is what courts are for, and the fact they aren't involved here is the basic problem.

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

#568

Post by [deleted] »

smsm42 wrote: post #550
cwkoss wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the counterparty refuses to prodive a service you've already paid for, they should be liable to reimburse you.

You paid for the right to access content for undefined term, determined by sole discretion of the service provider. You've got what you paid for.

[deleted]

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

#569

Post by cwkoss »

smsm42 wrote: post #550
cwkoss wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the counterparty refuses to prodive a service you've already paid for, they should be liable to reimburse you.

You paid for the right to access content for undefined term, determined by sole discretion of the service provider. You've got what you paid for.

You say tomato, I say fraud

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

#570

Post by clusterfish »

binarysolo wrote: post #565
behnamoh wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped paying for dating apps as soon as I realized tinder, Bumble, and Match constantly try to "lure" me into paying for subscriptions. It happened many times that I would get notifications about new matches/likes just moments after midnight when my subscription plan ended. I found it statistically unlikely that people only liked my profile right after my plan is finished.

Assuming it's not outright foul play, it's prob more likely that the matching services intentionally boost your profile gets better reach/impressions as that's a +EV play, and reduce your profile reach when you're subscribed long-term. To carry this thought exercise more, someone structuring this system could also treat hot/responsive/engaged profiles as an asset of retention and intentionally matchmake the results t…

Which part of this is not foul play? Man, our standards are low.
Post reply on HN