61–70 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that a few years ago this was an “incel” opinion and would get you banned from Reddit. Now it’s practically common sense
Yeah the narrative has really changed. It’s not that different from the lab leak theory
Not a Tinder user or investor, but this makes me curious. Why is it okay for insurance companies to sell me products with hyper-personalized pricing (often based on sex, age, and race), but it's not okay for Tinder or other tech companies to do so?
Marketing methods are often a little more fuzzy and less ethical than the actual underwriting. Insurers and marketers know about all sort of stuff that affects insurability, from eating habits, to gun ownership, to participation in high risk activity.
I don’t necessarily understand what Tinder does precisely, but it’s pretty obvious that you can exploit the insecurity or desperation of people looking for dates. It’s gonna be easier to extract cash from a 45 year old divorced woman than a 25 year old single woman. And you may want to use tolls as a friction point to reduce the number of undesirable or less profitable men.
You can probably use willingness to pay as a factor to score matches that will generate more churn that keeps the subscription in place. Generally speaking, I expect the most evil imaginable from companies like this. Online dating is a real mill, especially when you pass the threshold where you’re not attached and most people in your cohort are.
Tinder is basically 5/100 guys getting all the matches per 90/100 women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if it is the same service, what is the problem with Tinder charging some people an extra $20? This isn't an essential service in any way. I am not a lawyer, but I do know age is a protected class in the US. It could be seen as age based discrimination. My understanding is that protected classes are the same criteria we use to, for example make it illegal to have a separate price for different races. Edit: as t…
Most country clubs in the US will have different initiation fees and monthly dues based on age. How do they get away with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insurance companies are supposed to increase the price t relative to the risk. So if you’re paying double the premium than someone else for car insurance, it’s because they have some data to suggest that you’re twice as, “risky.” In the US, at least, you actually need to to get pre-approval for your prices and how you arrive at that price, and that information becomes public record.
>In the US, at least, you actually need to to get pre-approval for your prices and how you arrive at that price, and that information becomes public record. But some factors get a free pass whereas others don't. eg. age/sex is allowed, but race/income/education isn't (although zip codes approximate some of those, to an extent).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most country clubs in the US will have different initiation fees and monthly dues based on age. How do they get away with it?
Same with how nearly every theatre in the country charges less for children and elderly patrons.
You might try making an argument that theaters have to give you senior pricing as soon as you turn 40; I don't know what's going on there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insurance companies are supposed to increase the price t relative to the risk. So if you’re paying double the premium than someone else for car insurance, it’s because they have some data to suggest that you’re twice as, “risky.” In the US, at least, you actually need to to get pre-approval for your prices and how you arrive at that price, and that information becomes public record.
>In the US, at least, you actually need to to get pre-approval for your prices and how you arrive at that price, and that information becomes public record. But some factors get a free pass whereas others don't. eg. age/sex is allowed, but race/income/education isn't (although zip codes approximate some of those, to an extent).
(Side note, in the lead up to the restriction on how insurers could base their premiums, there was a failed initiative in the 90s that would have made California a no-fault state and would handle funding insurance through a surcharge on gasoline prices.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think the price of the service is too high, move on to a competitor. It's a problem because it puts consumers at an even further disadvantage in a game that's already stacked against them. That you're still willing to pay makes no difference - you're still worse off than before. Maybe it would be somewhat fair if consumers had their own well-funded departments, studying corporations to determine the lowest p…
But, that's not what I'm saying. I'm in fact not willing to pay, and I'm moving on to a competitor that provides the same service for less.
They will explain they need answers to a bunch of questions to know if the product is a good fit for you. What they're really trying to do is figure out the max you will pay.