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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.