Hacker News Reader

Comment by kryogen1c | Hacker News Reader

making an economic decision to make more money is different than making an identitarian decision to hurt a group you dont like.

View on HN

Not at all actually. Liberal ideologies like to dress up things like racism as moral and emotional hate-based, but discrimination and oppression often has economic roots. US slavery itself existed purely for economic reasons. Further oppression was to concentrate wealth in white society.

Yet these are recognized by straight people as racism, but straight people don’t recognize, let’s be fair, anything at all as discrimination against gay people.

That doesn't explain why you couldn't put a gun to your neighbors head and keep him as a slave in america. Theres without doubt a racial component to who could be a slave and whow couldnt

Long ago it was most certainly racial. However, these days what we see is mostly economic effects. This is why anti-discrimination efforts don't change things--it's not discrimination in the first place.

No, it can be one in the same. A modern day example is neighborhood gentrification. Increase the price until only a certain group of people can live there, and those that can't tough luck. So the end result is we get neighborhoods that consists of a majority of one group, and like super low percentage of other groups. ie, Mostly white neighborhoods vs ghettos dominated by black/hispanic groups.

Then looking back, there's IBM who profited by building systems to help Nazis process the Holocaust. And then later built a punch card system for Japanese internment camps in the US, during a time when asians, and Japanese people especially, were highly discriminated against in WW2. People were hurt here for no good reason, and all as an 'economic decision'. In my eyes, IBM is culpable for the atrocities they helped create, even if it was 'just for money'.

Bringing it back to Tinder, the question is why do we need this kind of price discrimination? How is it >consistently< determining that gays, lesbians, and over-30s should be charged more than their younger and hetero counter parts? The key word is consistently, because that feels like targeting. Why not have a flat fee structure, since we're all created equal in the pursuit of a romantic partner? If Tinder wanted to make more money, then just increase the base cost for everyone, not just for certain people in protected classes.

Can anyone imagine if Netflix said, hey we're gonna increase the price for gay and old people by 20%. Like Why? Everyone enjoys watching movies and shows, it's not like gay and older people have more fun watching them than heteros. It's equal enjoyment.

Gentrification is an inevitable result of improving neighborhoods, nobody is doing it. If the neighborhood improves people will want to move there and will bid up the price. Nobody's trying to discriminate.

As for a flat fee structure--they're charging more to those they think will be willing to pay more. Either because they can afford more or because they're more desperate. Thus those with better prospects get charged less.

So are you saying that Tinder doesn't charge more for these cohorts?

You keep repeating that, but did anyone say that?

I guess I'm just curious as to what would compel someone to be so pedantic about something like this, unless they're just that willing to go to bat for a company who is obviously discriminating against these groups.

I don't consider explaining motivations as "going to bat" for someone.

Perhaps it's not useful to point out the obvious that discriminatory practices can be tightly coupled with economic practices. Explaining it away as "well they're just catering to a certain demographic" doesn't negate the fact that it's literal discrimination, especially when it's obfuscated to the extent that actual journalism has to bring it to light.

im saying that if they are, there are reasonable explanations besides bigotry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com