370
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by UrLogicFails@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 121 points 1 year ago

Why pay $500 a month to get blocked? You can get ghosted for free already

[-] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you're SUPER attractive, especially if you're a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you're actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you're seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a "dating economy" around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren't getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It's slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you're not "winning" and getting dates they make it clear that it's YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you'll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it's their only chance at getting a date. It's disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that's a different discussion

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 1 year ago

I used to use OKCupid, and it was so much better than Tinder. Unfortunately, Tinder's success changed the game and it seems like all the dating sites follow its general form now. On old OKC people would write freaking novels in their bios, in addition to answering hundreds of questions. On Tinder, if you have even two complete sentences in your profile, you're an outlier. It's an explicitly, aggressively shallow platform.

I don't think the old message-anyone method scales well, though. Dating sites are far more popular today than they were back when I used OKC. And even back then, every woman I knew who used it turned off notifications because it was overwhelming.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago

On Tinder it would not be in the same context that what you experienced. In OKCupid it's part of the rules that you can send messages without a match. So people are OK (I guess) with it. On Tinder it's going to come as unexpected and unwelcome. You will start with a disadvantage. Unless the woman is only interested in money (if you can spend $500/month on an app then you are probably among the wealthier half of the population).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] averagedrunk@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago

If I can just tell her how awesome my penis is she'll fall madly in love! Right now she has no idea!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ronnie@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

That's why I pay for the $1000 a month "ultra supreme user" tier which doesn't allow me to get blocked!

[-] Jables@iusearchlinux.fyi 107 points 1 year ago

$500 per month?? At that point just go to a prostitute a few times a month. The people paying for this are stupid, but on the other hand it's super sad that Tinder even made this subscription. They know some desperate people are going to subscribe.

[-] averagedrunk@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

I don't know what the going rate is but I assume that if you just want a throw you could probably get a mid tier prostitute almost once a week for that price.

[-] mycatiskai@lemmy.one 27 points 1 year ago

Probably 3 times a month for in a western country. If you are in a long term relationship that is probably around the same amount of times you are getting laid.

The problem is that the people that would pay 500 to tinder are not the kind of people capable of a long term relationship. Even their fleshlights pray for manufacturing defects so they can get out of long term service.

[-] RadioRat@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

Three times a month for a long term relationship seems really low to me. Over a decade married and ~3-5x a week.

[-] Swallowtail@beehaw.org 27 points 1 year ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/how-often-do-happiest-couples-have-sex-it-s-less-ncna828491

Once a week or so is the average. I'm at about the same amount of time in a relationship as you and we're about once a week. Personally I feel like sex is nice but it takes time and effort and I'm not always in the mood to spend time pleasing someone else (and I'm not going to initiate unless I'm willing to do that). I could see myself having sex a little bit more often if I had a better work-life balance where I felt less pressed for time. This gets me thinking that I should check in with my partner about this topic though!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 82 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Many years ago™ OkCupid actually had a good system, before it revamped itself and got bought by Match (Tinder).

In the old version of the website, you could answer any amount of questions from a huge catalogue of sometimes very obscure and specific questions and look for people who had very similar (or very different) answers overall. You could chat freely with everyone and had the option to look just for (platonic) friends.

I had incredibly interesting discussions with people who were at the opposite spectrum of my answers. And I made a few acquaintances and two amazing friends who still are my friends today, one is even my roommate for 8 years now! I also found a group of white hackers and Linux enthusiasts for real life meetings and we still hang out occasionally.

Two other friends of mine looked for and found romantic partners there and they are both happily married to the partners they found via OkCupid back then.

It went all down the gutter when people used the "platonic friends" option to get into your pants.

And when OkCupid tried to make more cash by pushing into the sex/romance market more and copying dating apps.

I don't think something like this would work anymore. Dating apps and the weird culture and thinking about a "sexual market" seem to have broken humans or something. This asinine idea is just another symptom.

[-] Crotaro@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

OkCupid really used to be awesome. I would not have met my spouse, had I not checked it out because of the amazingly interesting and varied questionnaires.

I'm so sad that it was made shitty.

[-] renard_roux@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago

My wife and I actually met on OkCupid, happily married for 8 years now, and dated a few years before that, so safe to say I haven't been there in 10+ years.

Sad to hear it's gone down the drain, it seemed the least vile of the available options 😓

[-] fox@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Absolutely LOVED the questionnaire aspect of okcupid. At one point I ran out of questions you could answer. Met some fantastic people using the app.

[-] cicapocok@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

I also met my boyfriend back then like 7 years ago. It was the best "dating platform" that I ever used. Had a lot of great conversations with many people all over the world. Came back to it a few years ago but they already changed it to a more tinder type of way. It was very disappointing.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Nivekk@kbin.social 75 points 1 year ago

Next step: Charging you money if you DON'T want to hear from someone you haven't matched with.

[-] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 62 points 1 year ago

WTF??? Monetized sexual harassment?!?!

What is even parody anymore?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Teon@kbin.social 60 points 1 year ago

Want to be a creepy dating stalker?
$500* please
*unlimited creepiness included!

[-] athos77@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

Actual creepiness is limited to two messages per week.

That said, I'm sure that (now the door is cracked slightly) there'll be another tier with ten messages, twenty, a hundred ...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 57 points 1 year ago

This move seems absolutely wild, and I think Match knows it; which is why it's only available to such a small segment of users.

If too many users have this feature (and who knows how many that would be?) it''s going to scare away all the regular users. What's the point in swiping no if that user can just veto your decision anyways?

This move reminds me a lot of what I've heard about mobile gaming. The 500USD/month users are whales, but the whales need regular people to play with or they'll get bored and leave.

Right now, keeping the number of whales to a minimum is important to keep the regular users happy, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some cost/benefit analysis shows that they can take the hit on regular users to squeeze out a few more whales.

It also seems like a bonkers move to pay 500 dollars to talk to someone who doesn't want to talk to you, too. (But that's a different issue.)

They'll milk it when upper management is ready to cash out to massively grow short term profits so they can all take huge bonuses. Then they'll replace upper management with scapegoats who can be there to absorb shareholder blowback and try to rebuild something of value from whatever's left.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

Except what they're all "playing" for are people (and lets be honest, this is aimed at creepy men who can't get matched otherwise, so more specifically they're "playing" for women), with their own wants and needs and often safety concerns, all of which this serves to circumvent, which is definitely not how you "win" at tinder (finding an abuse victim? Sure, but not an actual viable relationship. Which again, tells you who this was designed for and why).

[-] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

Why are you assuming that men who can't get matched are automatically creeps? That's not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That's how I met my now fiancee, too.

Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people's mental health. They've taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They've reduced finding a partner to "does this person look attractive to you?" which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you're not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn't matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn't matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I never said men who can't get matched are creeps, I said this is aimed at creeps who can't get matched but would be willing to pay $500 a month to force themsleves on to others. That's who you're jumping to the defence of here.

[-] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn't mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is "aimed at creeps," because it's aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder's algorithm. Desperation doesn't necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.

Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You're using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 53 points 1 year ago

Tinder power users sound like extremely poor dates.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago

They sound like the type of people who would refer to themselves as "High Value Men".

[-] Otome-chan@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago

Every time I see something about tinder it's just worse and worse. why would I want to use it?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 1 year ago

It was good for a while, but yeah, they need to make money somehow and I guess that's how they decided to do it. This one will definitely backfire. The last thing anyone wants is getting dick pics from a sad sack who pays $500/Mo for that privilege. Women are going to leave in droves.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago

That's fine. For every woman who leaves, 10 more bots will join, and they'll appreciate the extra attention!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] realChem@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

why would I want to use it?

You wouldn't, but that's fine with Match Group: JP Morgan[^1] are loving this new monetization strategy. If they think they can get more money out of their users they will, the experience and usefulness of their app be damned. Very similar to aggressively monetized mobile games, but extra icky since they're monetizing human relationships.

[^1]: I'm sure other investment firms are pleased as well, but JP Morgan was the firm mentioned in the article

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] j4yt33@feddit.de 42 points 1 year ago

If you want to rip off rich, desperate men, here's how: just wait for a message from someone you haven't matched with.

Catfishing just got so much easier

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] scott@lem.free.as 38 points 1 year ago

Enshittification at its finest.

[-] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago

This is going scare away regular people and especially women pretty fast.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If someone pays $500+ to talk to me, I'll talk back.

Also: I feel like this is gonna lead to most women on Tinder leaving Tinder after they get flooded by creeps. Rich creeps, but still creeps.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] danfromwv@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 year ago

One of OKCupid's founders - Christian Rudder was in a band called Bishop Allen (along with Justin Rice). Awesome band. That has nothing to do with this thread - just thought I'd recommend you check them out.

[-] XTornado@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Sir, This Is A Wendy's

[-] MaxPower@feddit.de 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Genius product strategy indeed. However it sucks for the "victims" I guess who will now get messaged by people they did not match with.

[-] bermuda@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago

That's half my rent

[-] PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

Whoever thought about this idea is a freaking GENIUS.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
370 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37747 readers
218 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