4 ms·

It basically is a business model for dating sites. Get big enough to be annoying and then wait for Match Group to make an offer. Match Group owns Tinder, Match

It basically is a business model for dating sites. Get big enough to be annoying and then wait for Match Group to make an offer. Match Group owns Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, Hinge, and PlentyOfFish as well as a metric fuck ton of niche sites.

varispeed 6y ago
This seems like a huge gaping loophole in capitalism. I think companies should be disallowed to buy competing companies (even via proxy) and companies beyond certain threshold should by law be divided into smaller companies.
- tim333 6y ago
  It's been noted. It's what the > The Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission was set up on 1 January 1949 was for, now the Competition Commission. How well that works is debatable.
- RIMR 6y ago
  Counterpoint: This isn't a "loophole" or a "flaw" in capitalism. This is just capitalism working exactly as it was designed. The entire point of capitalism is to acquire as much capital as possible, not to be the best at what you do. It's not a meritocracy. The best idea doesn't win - the best FUNDED idea wins, which means whichever dumb idea that benefits the rich the most is what you're going to get. And if the rich people who own Match.com decide that buying up every competitor and rolling them into their platform is what's going to make them the most money, that's what they are going to do. Don't view it as a flaw of capitalism that needs to be fixed, think of it as a feature of capitalism that necessitates a conversation about alternatives.
  - harpiaharpyja 6y ago
    I'm sick of this meme. The purpose of any institution - economic, political, social - is to serve some function and if we can modify it to better serve whatever function we desire, we should be able to do so without disingenuous aholes in comment threads bitching through their 1-dimensional ploy to shut down all conversation that doesn't include their pet solution of "burn down everything so we can implement the system I want" How about this: Improving what is there IS an alternative, and one that must be seriously considered.

varispeed 6y ago

This seems like a huge gaping loophole in capitalism. I think companies should be disallowed to buy competing companies (even via proxy) and companies beyond certain threshold should by law be divided into smaller companies.

tim333 6y ago
It's been noted. It's what the > The Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission was set up on 1 January 1949 was for, now the Competition Commission. How well that works is debatable.
RIMR 6y ago
Counterpoint: This isn't a "loophole" or a "flaw" in capitalism. This is just capitalism working exactly as it was designed. The entire point of capitalism is to acquire as much capital as possible, not to be the best at what you do. It's not a meritocracy. The best idea doesn't win - the best FUNDED idea wins, which means whichever dumb idea that benefits the rich the most is what you're going to get. And if the rich people who own Match.com decide that buying up every competitor and rolling them into their platform is what's going to make them the most money, that's what they are going to do. Don't view it as a flaw of capitalism that needs to be fixed, think of it as a feature of capitalism that necessitates a conversation about alternatives.
- harpiaharpyja 6y ago
  I'm sick of this meme. The purpose of any institution - economic, political, social - is to serve some function and if we can modify it to better serve whatever function we desire, we should be able to do so without disingenuous aholes in comment threads bitching through their 1-dimensional ploy to shut down all conversation that doesn't include their pet solution of "burn down everything so we can implement the system I want" How about this: Improving what is there IS an alternative, and one that must be seriously considered.