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

Technology

37758 readers
409 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
370
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
[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile [...] most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.

Is that wrong, though? Would you go on a date with someone you can't stand looking in the face? There is no amount of profile that could make me swipe "yes" on a duckface, someone who clearly spends half their day at the gym, an over the top sport team's fan, a photo of a cloud, or a close-up of some ass/tits.

Looks and context of a self-selected picture tell a lot about a person, and how they want to be seen.