[trhway]

you seem to mistake market efficiency for abuse of an asymmetry. If anything, allowing abuse of an asymmetry leads to decrease in efficiency. They don't need better service if they can just extract more from you for the same service.

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

The part I don't understand though is why this is a problem. If you think the price of the service is too high, move on to a competitor. I did once I saw how much they were going to charge me this year. Hinge/Bumble are a much better ROI at this moment, and Tinder lost a long time paying customer. That's the market at work.

[car_analogy]

> If you think the price of the service is too high, move on to a competitor.

It's a problem because it puts consumers at an even further disadvantage in a game that's already stacked against them. That you're still willing to pay makes no difference - you're still worse off than before.

Maybe it would be somewhat fair if consumers had their own well-funded departments, studying corporations to determine the lowest price they'd still be willing to sell a product for, and then collectively negotiating the price.

But we don't, and it would be a waste of humanity's limited time to play these zero-sum, when we can just make the behavior illegal.

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

But, that's not what I'm saying. I'm in fact not willing to pay, and I'm moving on to a competitor that provides the same service for less.

[car_analogy]

I mean if, hypothetically, they had raised their price to the maximum you were willing to pay, and hadn't gone too high.

[14]

Except that a majority of the dating sites are owned by the same company.

[guskel]

Last I checked, Tinder has the largest userbase compared to the other apps.