Hacker News Reader

Comment by qshqwudhoquc | Hacker News Reader

My issue with this is that these decisions aren't necessarily being made because of operating costs. It doesn't cost more to host a man than a woman.

View on HN

Having too many men can impact the experience women have, and if they leave then the entire platform collapses. The cost to "host" a user is the same regardless of gender but platforms like these work only if the gender ratio is at least somewhat balanced - the fee seems to help with that, just like it does in a physical club(where it also doesn't cost any more to host a man than it does a woman).

Gender imbalance also negatively impacts the experience of the men: nobody wants too much competition.

Currently there are 3 men for every woman on Tinder [0].

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/975925/us-tinder-user-ra...

Gay men are charged $8-13 while gay women are charged $7. Gay men and women aren't dating each other so this has nothing to do with gender imbalance.

Gay men can choose not to pay if they are unhappy with the price

Well yes, but at least in some places companies introducing different prices based on things like gender or race are not legal. Recently in the UK there was a case where a pub had a promotion where men paid more for drinks on the International Womens day, and someone took them to court over it and won - the court agreed that such pricing based in gender is not legal in the UK. On the other hand, clubs do this all the time without a fuss, but I suspect it's because no one challenged them legally on it yet.

In general I'm not a fan of the "gay people can just chose not to pay" argument - it sounds too similar to the one where some companies argued they should be allowed to deny gay people service, since they can simply go somewhere else.

The cost doesn't have anything to do with the price(except for setting the bare minimum if you want to break even).

If the price is higher that what it should be, there's your opportunity to sell your matching service at lower prices.

It's perfectly normal that these decisions aren't necessarily being made because of operating costs, pricing in general is arbitrary and does not have to have any relation whatsoever with costs.

Meh, it's just like cover prices at a club. As a guy, you can let the "unfairness" bother you, or you can realize it's in your best interest to minimize barriers for women because basically everything is a saugagefest otherwise.

Then again, the actual figures in the article tell a different story than the title does.

- Queer female under 30: $7/mo

- Straight female over 30: $30/mo

- Straight male over 50: $35/mo

So it's really age in general.

Though I'm a male in my 30s in a metro center and it's just showing me $8/mo. Though that's probably just Tinder's AI recognizing me as the gift to women that I am.

Also, Tinder Gold is optional. I'm a heavy dating-app user and would never pay for premium features.

Doesn't affect me personally I just thought it sounded weird from an outside perspective.

Commerce has never been done on the basis of operating costs. Go look at the price difference between a cheap shirt and an expensive shirt. The change in operating costs is nothing compared to the price difference.

More drinks will be bought if there is a certain ratio.

It's simply supply and demand. There are many more men than women using most dating services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com