I notice that the wording leaves room for some clarification: if Tinder offers to all users the same choice of pricing tiers for different levels of service, bu

I notice that the wording leaves room for some clarification: if Tinder offers to all users the same choice of pricing tiers for different levels of service, but individuals in different communities have a tendency to select different levels, then on average they could appear to pay more, when in fact they requested higher tiers of service. such "second order price discrimination" is completely legal and quite common. It's called second order because it's indirect: blue plate special at 5pm is a cheap complete meal. It attracts senior citizens because they are time flexible and prefer to eat early, and have lower budgets, and the restaurant likes it because that's a quiet time so why not fill it with customers. But anybody can buy it. I'm not saying this is what's happening with Tinder, I'm saying I apply the same cynicism-of-doublespeak to greedy corporations as I've now learned to apply to SJWs. And if it is what is happening with Tinder, it could be that they priced different tiers on the basis of usage and it turns out that different groups just have different usage profiles. Or they could have determined which groups have less price elasticity of demand and charged more for services that those groups want. This could be cast as unfair, but is simply charging "what the market will bear"