this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
371 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
516 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
371
Tinder Now Letting Rizzless Sad Sacks Pay $500/Month to Message People Without Even Matching (futurism.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by UrLogicFails@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it's not a glitch — it's part of the app's expensive new subscription plan that it teased earlier this year, which allows "power users" to send unsolicited messages to non-matches for the small fee of $499 per month.

That landscape, in fact, is largely populated by apps owned by Tinder's parent company: as Bloomberg notes, Match Group Inc. not only owns the popular swiping app, but also Match.com, OKCupid, Hinge, and The League.

Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder's subscriptions as "low-hanging fruit" meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SeriousBug@infosec.pub 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they get rid of the questions? That was the most awesome part of OkCupid. Because you not only answered the questions but you could pick if you cared what your potential matches answers should be.

I met my wife on OkCupid, we were a high % match according to OkCupid and we did turn out to be a great match. That's stupid if they got rid of that.

[–] beto@lemmy.studio 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's a big conflict of interest in dating apps: if you're successful you stop using the app, and of course the company doesn't want that.

[–] theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But if everyone has a shitty experience with it, they won't recommend it or even tell people to stay away from it. But if it works well, they'll praise it, thus gaining more users.

[–] interolivary@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And enshittification and buying up competitors will lead to all sites being the same, which is exactly what has happened. Executives don't care about providing a useful service, they just care about getting richer

[–] shitwolves@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Match Group has basically ruined all of online dating.