Online dating has a success rate FAR below gambling. It's an outright scam for 95%+ of men. Why do the feds not come down on this shit?

[mylifeistrash]

Seriously, why does the government allow this blatant scam shit to operate, yet online gambling has been banned for over a decade in the USA?

In classic blackjack, the house has a 0.13% advantage over you. If women are like the house in a casino, there advantage is at least 1000x over you, considering average male = almost matches, while average female = infinite matches.

Online dating realistic has a what, 99% failure rate? How many men could fuck a normie tier woman from there?

Scammy as fuck. Outright fraud. Anyone involved with this fraud business should be in federal prison.

 

[Deleted member 24081]

High IQ thread. The creators of Tinder should be tried before a court for fraud.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

Desperation

 

[FrothySolutions]

Because you can't quantify sex like you can quantify money. You can be owed a specific value of money. You can't say "I'm owed sex." You can't say "Sex is worth this particular mathematical value."

 

[dirtykombatcel]

High IQ thread. The creators of Tinder should be tried before a court for fraud.

 

[Gymcelled]

The government is always ok with people making money off of lonely sub8 men.

Gambling isn't strictly controlled or illegal because it's a vice or because it leads to poverty but rather because it's too easy to do stuff under the table imo

 

[Deleted member 24256]

High IQ thread. The creators of Tinder should be tried before a court for fraud.

 

[mylifeistrash]

What? How does this work?

google "blackjack odds"

 

[Deleted member 24081]

Bouncy

 

[epillepsy]

They're thinking of banning loot boxes but not Tinder.

 

[Deleted member 21768]

I knew this since I failed to be able to join eharmony like a decade ago.

 

[Deleted member 23682]

Seriously, why does the government allow this blatant scam shit to operate,

it might seem water is wet, even for you, a smart user
but i'll elab for the stupid bluepillers:

MEN ACT STUPIDER WHEN AROUND WOMEN. THIS INCLUDES THE "POTENTIAL" FOR SEX. EVEN IF THAT POTENTIAL IS BULLSHIT

 

[universallyabhorred]

It's because nobody cares about the needs and rights of men, unless they rise up. Which they won't because they are sissies.

 

[NormScum]

High IQ thread. The creators of Tinder should be tried before a court for fraud.

 

[FrothySolutions]

That... what? How does that relate to what he said?

In order to accuse someone of fraud, you need to be able to say "I was guaranteed/owed this, but in fact I was actually robbed." Technically you aren't being robbed, even if you pay for Tinder. Because you get what the service offers. The opportunity to interact with people, if they choose to interact with you.

 

[mylifeistrash]

1% house edge doesn't mean you have a 99% chance of winning JFL. Low IQ as fuck.

I wrote that badly. I should have said women are like the house and the house can have as low as a <1% advantage over you.

In reality, women have a 1000x advantage over you.

 

[Speedloader]

High IQ thread. The creators of Tinder should be tried before a court for fraud.

 

[FrothySolutions]

No, this isn't about guaranteeing fraud, this is about being able to scientifically repeat and present a consistent negative undesirable effect after usage.

"Negative" and "undesirable" are subjective, you can't take Tinder to court over that. You can't say "I failed at the objective of Tinder" when, legally, there is no fixed objective of Tinder.

 

[radishman]

Can't wait till tinder starts charging men for each swipe...

 

[Deleted member 23682]

I wrote that badly. I should have said women are like the house and the house can have as low as a <1% advantage over you.

In reality, women have a 1000x advantage over you.

View attachment 291966

based

(btw, shoot me a PM plz)

 

[Speedloader]

Because you can't quantify sex like you can quantify money. You can be owed a specific value of money. You can't say "I'm owed sex." You can't say "Sex is worth this particular mathematical value."

 

[FrothySolutions]

I disagree. Coming away after having only interacted with bots was used for lawsuit in Canada despite those bots being part of signing up. Fact is people sign up thinking they have some chance at a relationship when really they don't.

Doesn't that mean it's the interaction with humans that's guaranteed? Not the relationship?

 

[FrothySolutions]

Not on Tinder.

How so? How can you guarantee a relationship? How is it Tinder's obligation to make people like us? Isn't that on the people themselves to choose whether or not they like us? All Tinder offers is a place to meet people.

 

[FrothySolutions]

i.e. leaving an app advertising itself to lead to friendships after years of usage never talking to a real person. It happens.

So the accusation here is "Tinder said I would make friends with this?" Tinder never said you would. Just that people do.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Still can be argued that it's foul play because of the nature of the business model and implications are fake

But "nature" is subjective. "Implications" are super subjective. What do you point to to prove what Tinder is? What "promise" Tinder makes you?

 

[Deleted member 27204]

Because you can't quantify sex like you can quantify money. You can be owed a specific value of money. You can't say "I'm owed sex." You can't say "Sex is worth this particular mathematical value."

In order to accuse someone of fraud, you need to be able to say "I was guaranteed/owed this, but in fact I was actually robbed." Technically you aren't being robbed, even if you pay for Tinder. Because you get what the service offers. The opportunity to interact with people, if they choose to interact with you.

"Negative" and "undesirable" are subjective, you can't take Tinder to court over that. You can't say "I failed at the objective of Tinder" when, legally, there is no fixed objective of Tinder.

tier argument. Unattractive males are being ripped off and should sue.

The government is always ok with people making money off of lonely sub8 men.

Gambling isn't strictly controlled or illegal because it's a vice or because it leads to poverty but rather because it's too easy to do stuff under the table imo

Pretty much. Have you seen commercials and ads directed at males? Basically most of them flat out mock the viewers and targeted male audience and say that if you don't buy into their products you aren't a real man.
I don't see this with any other targeted demographic.

Also a lot of PUAs and lifestyle coaches have shady backgrounds tbhngl

They are sleazy af

 

[SubhumanAbomination]

based