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.

    • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

        • shitwolves@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They all follow that general form because the same company (Match Group) bought all of the different dating sites and changed them to the form that makes them the most money.

      • MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I had a similar thought. While I agree with the chorus that this is creepy AF and I in no way condone it, as a man who had to wade through these garbage dating apps to, fortunately, meet a long term partner I can attest to the profound sense of loneliness they cause. When I think back on it I can honestly see why some might consider this.

        These apps suck, but in today’s world they aren’t always optional. My specific situation was living somewhere new at the beginning of the pandemic. It wasn’t really possible to meet people organically.

        Edit: spelling

      • potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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).

        • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder’s part. The people who own and make the app know that, they’re doing this anyway. So they’re targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a “lifeline” which actually may make their chances worse.

          • potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, it most definitely is scummy. It’s no news that Tinder does not care about people well-beings. Actually, they want you to get stuck to the platform as long as you can; if everyone was finding their partner after a week their platform would not be profitable anymore.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.

  • Jables@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.

          • Swallowtail@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            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!

            • mycatiskai@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It isn’t ideal but working 5 days a week on opposite schedules once a week is minimum and one week there is a natural occurence that makes one of us feel not super into sexy times.

  • UrLogicFails@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.)

  • PotentiallyAnApricot@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The incredible horror of tying self worth to romantic “success” and then charging people money for it, is awful on its face, but it leads to much worse things too. This is, in effect, charging money for people to have “access” to people who haven’t consented to being contacted, furthering the idea that money=access to people who can’t say no to you. Tinder is monetizing peoples’ emotional need for connection at best, which is horrible, but at worst it’s also propping up a whole complex of ideas that erode respect and consent toward potential romantic or sexual partners, and that the far end eventually leads to like, Andrew Tate shit. And why wouldn’t it work? People have had their self worth obliterated by the commodification of human beings that is mainstream heteronormative dating culture. Tech companies making themselves the mediator of human connection, romantic or platonic or in terms of activism, hobbies, groups, etc - and then charging money for us to know each other and meet each other - horrifies me daily.