[hda2]

I don't know what you're going on about, but this "crap" was in reference to increasing price without offering something in return. If a store sold a woman an specific item for 5x the price they offer to men, they would be sued for discrimination. Unless serving certain demographics costs tinder more (thereby justifying the increase the price), it is objectively unfair and discriminatory. End of story.

[barry-cotter]

The “crap” you’re talking about is the idea that fairness has a place in mating. The thing that justifies tinder charging different groups of people different prices is that they want to and if people don’t want to buy they don’t have to. It’s the same rationale by which tiers of software services that differ in their cost to the provider by little or nothing differ in their cost to the buyer by orders of magnitude. If you don’t want to buy don’t.

If discrimination by gender or other relevant characteristic was illegal in the US that might have some legal, not moral bearing, but no one cares.

> In the United States, a few states have adopted statutes forbidding gender-based price discrimination, but these policies are largely unenforced.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-based_price_discrimin...

[hda2]

> The “crap” you’re talking about is the idea that fairness has a place in mating.

That "crap" is something you brought up on your own. We're discussing unfair discriminatory pricing, not mating.