6 ms·

Speaking of Tinder, I've noticed that their algorithm seems to put a very attractive person when I first open the app (who almost never is a match for me) and t

Speaking of Tinder, I've noticed that their algorithm seems to put a very attractive person when I first open the app (who almost never is a match for me) and then people I find less attractive after, often the 2nd or 3rd is someone who had already liked me. I think if I hit the "boost" feature, which is something crazy expensive, like $20, then they will show my profile to "more people" but more likely that means more people that I would find attractive. My main question: when they and other social media control the algorithm and can almost predict when we will "win", at what point is this similar enough to a slot machine and the payout ratio should be regulated by an outside organization?

nikanj 5y ago
When the winnings are $USD, not just dopamine
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Why on earth would $USD and not dopamine be the line? And what about semi-fungible assets (e.g. virtual goods)
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Hmm, at first I thought it was a good point then thought about non-cash prizes in raffles and imagined those are also regulated. Also, carnival games, which depend on game of skill or chance, but still almost always non-cash prizes. I wonder if it were more direct if it would be more likely to be regulated: people pay Tinder for each chance to swipe, $10 for 10 swipes. Then Tinder controls who appears in the swipes and can control how much someone "wins" (knowing if someone already liked them or the likelihood they would). Just seems like it would be pretty easy to get better at making sure the house almost always wins.
  - honkdaddy 5y ago
    I'm someone who's spent a fair amount on Tinder and other apps over the years. I definitely agree, the house always wins. That being said, when they're the only house in town, you stop really worrying about whether you're truly getting your money's worth, because you know there's not really any alternative.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I guess I just wish we had a little more agency over how some companies worked, rather than only having the option to either stay or leave.
      - honkdaddy 5y ago
        I wish we did too. In the dating app landscape, the biggest reason for this is that Match Group owns nearly every single player, with the only major holdout being Bumble. I think if each app were allowed to compete individually, instead of as part of a pseudomonopoly, you'd see a much better experience for paying users like myself. That being said, the "super like" I used yesterday to match with a woman who I'm taking out for dinner tonight cost me the equivalent of half a cup of coffee. Worth it? Who's to say.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        Yeah, I wish mergers and acquisitions didn't make so much money so that there would be less incentive to let companies merge and get acquired. > That being said, the "super like" I used yesterday to match with a woman who I'm taking out for dinner tonight cost me the equivalent of half a cup of coffee. Worth it? Who's to say. I guess there's a part of me that wishes this were pure serendipity or good strategy on your part, and another part that feels suspicious that Tinder could just manipulate the process somehow by front-loading your match with people she'd really not find attractive or even would anger her, then land you right after. Maybe I give them too much manipulation credit and yet without any insight into how their algorithms work, I guess we just take their word for it or leave? Also, just came up with a slogan that could maybe change how these orgs work (perhaps less so for Tinder but for more social media platforms): "No creation without representation." *edit: fixed typos
  - true_religion 5y ago
    Non cash prizes have a cash value attached. If the value of winning a carnival game was getting to date another carnival game winner then the government would stay well away from that financial transaction.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      Ok, what if it were a raffle and the winner gets a date with a supermodel? That's a non-cash prize for which I think would be similarly difficult to assess the cash value and yet I imagine they would regulate that.
      - true_religion 5y ago
        If the supermodel had to join the raffle against other supermodels, then it would be comparable to Tinder. On Tinder, there are no picked winners. Even attractive people compete against each other.
        jimkleiber 5y ago
        I guess I just assume that Tinder could predict with pretty high accuracy which two people would want to match with each other and then determine whether to show those people to each other, based on numerous factors, one especially being how much someone pays. Do you think Tinder is blind to which people are likely to match with each other? Fair in that maybe it's too complex/not straightforward enough to regulate as other gambling is and maybe similar to video game pay-to-win dynamics, however I still think there is the ability to pull certain levers to control people's sensations of "winning" even if it requires matching two sides.
atatatat 5y ago
They sporadically front load you with people who have already liked you.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Yes, I guess I'm just saying it probably wouldn't be too hard for them to know whether you would probably like those people as well or if you would swipe on them but not be likely to message them much. Again, just maybe it's me feeling more and more annoyed at how little control these companies give us to sort/filter our feeds and therefore how much they really can manipulate our experience (for better or worse), with our main semblance of control being leaving the platform.

nikanj 5y ago

When the winnings are $USD, not just dopamine

HWR_14 5y ago
Why on earth would $USD and not dopamine be the line? And what about semi-fungible assets (e.g. virtual goods)
jimkleiber 5y ago
Hmm, at first I thought it was a good point then thought about non-cash prizes in raffles and imagined those are also regulated. Also, carnival games, which depend on game of skill or chance, but still almost always non-cash prizes. I wonder if it were more direct if it would be more likely to be regulated: people pay Tinder for each chance to swipe, $10 for 10 swipes. Then Tinder controls who appears in the swipes and can control how much someone "wins" (knowing if someone already liked them or the likelihood they would). Just seems like it would be pretty easy to get better at making sure the house almost always wins.
- honkdaddy 5y ago
  I'm someone who's spent a fair amount on Tinder and other apps over the years. I definitely agree, the house always wins. That being said, when they're the only house in town, you stop really worrying about whether you're truly getting your money's worth, because you know there's not really any alternative.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I guess I just wish we had a little more agency over how some companies worked, rather than only having the option to either stay or leave.
    - honkdaddy 5y ago
      I wish we did too. In the dating app landscape, the biggest reason for this is that Match Group owns nearly every single player, with the only major holdout being Bumble. I think if each app were allowed to compete individually, instead of as part of a pseudomonopoly, you'd see a much better experience for paying users like myself. That being said, the "super like" I used yesterday to match with a woman who I'm taking out for dinner tonight cost me the equivalent of half a cup of coffee. Worth it? Who's to say.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        Yeah, I wish mergers and acquisitions didn't make so much money so that there would be less incentive to let companies merge and get acquired. > That being said, the "super like" I used yesterday to match with a woman who I'm taking out for dinner tonight cost me the equivalent of half a cup of coffee. Worth it? Who's to say. I guess there's a part of me that wishes this were pure serendipity or good strategy on your part, and another part that feels suspicious that Tinder could just manipulate the process somehow by front-loading your match with people she'd really not find attractive or even would anger her, then land you right after. Maybe I give them too much manipulation credit and yet without any insight into how their algorithms work, I guess we just take their word for it or leave? Also, just came up with a slogan that could maybe change how these orgs work (perhaps less so for Tinder but for more social media platforms): "No creation without representation." *edit: fixed typos
- true_religion 5y ago
  Non cash prizes have a cash value attached. If the value of winning a carnival game was getting to date another carnival game winner then the government would stay well away from that financial transaction.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    Ok, what if it were a raffle and the winner gets a date with a supermodel? That's a non-cash prize for which I think would be similarly difficult to assess the cash value and yet I imagine they would regulate that.
    - true_religion 5y ago
      If the supermodel had to join the raffle against other supermodels, then it would be comparable to Tinder. On Tinder, there are no picked winners. Even attractive people compete against each other.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        I guess I just assume that Tinder could predict with pretty high accuracy which two people would want to match with each other and then determine whether to show those people to each other, based on numerous factors, one especially being how much someone pays. Do you think Tinder is blind to which people are likely to match with each other? Fair in that maybe it's too complex/not straightforward enough to regulate as other gambling is and maybe similar to video game pay-to-win dynamics, however I still think there is the ability to pull certain levers to control people's sensations of "winning" even if it requires matching two sides.

atatatat 5y ago

They sporadically front load you with people who have already liked you.

jimkleiber 5y ago
Yes, I guess I'm just saying it probably wouldn't be too hard for them to know whether you would probably like those people as well or if you would swipe on them but not be likely to message them much. Again, just maybe it's me feeling more and more annoyed at how little control these companies give us to sort/filter our feeds and therefore how much they really can manipulate our experience (for better or worse), with our main semblance of control being leaving the platform.