‘Sugar’ dating apps are banned on the Play Store, but Tinder is not
There are a lot of dating apps available on the Google Play Store. No doubt you've heard or even tried out a few of them before. Some of the most well-known names are Tinder, OkCupid, and Bumble. Recently Google has made changes to the ‘inappropriate content’ policy to ban so-called ‘compensation for sexual relationship’ apps.
A few dating apps on the Play Store, such as Elite, Seeking Arrangement, and Spoil, are seen as sugar dating apps. What does that mean? We all know what a sugar daddy is, right? A wealthy, sometimes older, man dating a younger beautiful woman and gifting her expensive items or money. However, sugar dating is not only reserved for sugar daddies. There are also sugar mommies and even non-binary individuals who prefer the term sugar.
Google doesn't support any such Android apps in the Play Store. The process starts slowly with the policy mentioned above, which means that such apps fall under the ‘inappropriate content’ policy. With these changes in place, all sugar dating apps will be removed from the Play Store by September 2021.
However, it would appear that Google’s changes to its policies are overly selective as it doesn't seem that Android apps like Tinder are in the firing line, despite it being entirely possible for an attractive person on Tinder to receive some form of sugar dating arrangement through the app.
This policy seems to be a way that Google is cracking down on apps that explicitly promote themselves as sugar dating apps in line with industry norms. It's worth noting that Apple already has such a policy on their App Store.
The recent policy change that's banning all sugar dating apps on the Play Store could be seen by many as the right thing to do. However, the policy is still rather vague and still leaves a lot of apps that could also be used to find mutually beneficial relationships. In any case, if you were looking for such a relationship, then you might want to consider sideloading sugar dating apps from other sources.
Society is collapsing
Because these apps exist or because Google is banning them? Because if it’s the former, these kinds of relationships are nothing new.
… said some grumpy and cynical person a millennia ago as well for sure. :)
Conservatism and bad manners grow at an alarming rate!
International law says that there must always be competition and why should Google not have to comply with that?
Why does Google think it is above national and international law and can determine that I am allowed only to do what I want to do, with Thinder?
> International law says that there must always be competition
Umm, no, it doesn’t; and certainly not when it comes to company-owned and operated marketplaces.
> Why does Google think it is above national and international law and can determine that I am allowed only to do what I want to do, with Thinder?
It’s Tinder, and since you obviously didn’t RTFA, Google isn’t interfering with that app in any way right now. In any case it is entirely Google’s wish what apps it allows on its platform. App Stores aren’t democracies or beholden to the public, in case you didn’t know. You can complain if your app is unfairly targeted while others doing the exact same thing are not touched, and you perhaps MAY be successful in getting them to reinstate your app, but if the Store owner decides to drop the banhammer on an entire class of apps then you’ve got no recourse. Ultimately it’s their Store and you don’t have a right to force them to host your app.
I’m sorry, in practice big G isn’t a company although it’s technically registered as such, rest assured it’s one of the many facades for the OWG.
Funny you going on about Google complying with the law, when that is literally what they are doing here. “Sugar dating” is prostitution, and prostitution is illegal. So do you want Google to comply with the law or not?
apple and google together are an oligopoly. if you patronize them you can only buy what they say you can buy. On android you can still side load apps, for now. From a conservative view prositution is bad and not just for health reasons. apple and google ban a lot of opinions and even science on their platforms. This has nothing to do with morality but everything to do with control. For a deeper understanding read Plato’s “the allegory of the cave”.
I’m not gonna get into it, but ‘Sugar Dating’ isn’t dating but literally prostitution, so it makes sense for Google to ban it.
Yeah we know that, but the point is, why are they not banning Tinder?
Me thinks it’s because the surveillance dragnet have a way sifting through the data going through Tinder, who knows, maybe yet another company controlled by the powers that be.
While it’s not my thing, Tinder isn’t a prostitution platform. That’s the difference.
So are most marriages–the highest class of prostitution. When enough money is earned by “Sugar Daddy,” out the door that “sweet, charming woman goes, along with the children and her fee and a healthy pension on the sideline. Look around . . . how many marriages are even close the 50th?
Women are much more independent now–financially, sexually, emotionally, etc–than ever before. The woman who leaves a marriage and remarries in six months isn’t being inappropriate; she simply doesn’t need YOU anymore. Besides, she says, she was being used, he hated her, he ignored me except for sex (and that was five minutes or less a week!).
The goes with the dating app; no contract either! Saves everyone time “pretending Love is All.”
Hip and Hoe, Hem and Hah–and he’s still shaking his head.
If you can’t differentiate between marriage and prostitution, that’s on you.
“[H]e ignored me except for sex (and that was five minutes or less a week!).”
To steal a punchline from a sex therapist I saw an interview of years ago, “Who are these supermen?” ;-)
Solid Ghacks topic! Thought I was on ReclaimTheNet :p
Censorship, even by the private sector, is an evil that needs to be resisted, particularly when the entities practicing censorship have monopoly power like Apple and Google clearly do. Woke/PC censorship is a far bigger societal problem than sugar daddy websites.
So you’re fine with apps that essentially facilitate prostitution?
Your definition of prostitution is rather broad for my taste. It is certainly far broader than the legal definition of the term. You seem to be aware of that as the word ‘essentially’ gives away the game. I’d also point out that there are plenty of sugar daddy type activities (as well as real prostitution, not the essential variety, taking place on Tinder and other hookup apps). Why not get rid of them as well? Policing people’s morals is a slippery slope indeed, but the one thing I know is that I don’t want Big Tech making those decisions for me.
I love the term “big tech” that people throw around these days, oooh so scary sounding. As opposed to “small tech” I guess, lol. Anyway why are you against private companies being able to decide what’s allowed on THEIR platform?
And if you or anyone else doesn’t want “Big Tech making those decisions for me” then simply stop using Big Tech. Move on with your life and stop complaining. Big Tech isn’t exactly providing anything that is essential for life. Use their products/services, abide by their rules. Same as using public transit, the workplace, the society on lives in, etc. .
Fortunately, the USA (and Europe, of course) still has some protections against monopolies. It will take some time, but hopefully, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon will be run up against the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and there will eventually be real competition and real consumer choice. In that world people who want Sugar Daddy apps (not me, for the record) will be able to put them on their phones and people who don’t want them made available can choose to deal with companies like Google who police morality their way.
Speaking of monopolies, I personally would love to see the big cable companies forced to compete. They are virtual monopolies in most parts of the country. E.g. where I live my ISP is either Comcast or dial up because that’s all that’s available here.
“Compensation for sexual relationship”. Most relationships include compensation in one way or another, be it sexual is only one compensation among others, a salary like another. I never understood all the fuss about sex when the only essential point is mutual agreement between adults. Sexual relationships are of course far nicer without a salary, in the same way the kid mowing the lawn to help his parents is far nicer than doing it for a buck (I remember that from my youth in NY where that scenario had stunned me). Now it must be 5 bucks, is it?!
Concerning dating apps selectively banned, it becomes a communication enterprise when the focus is set as such : selectively. I wouldn’t say these apps should be all banned, but rather that none should. There are dramatic things going on the Web but, IMO, a gentleman’s agreement (if I may say!) is none of that.
If if we forget morality and consider aesthetics, one could say that paying for what could/should be a heaven of sensual (and possibly love) communion is vulgar (I didn’t dare say “cheap”!), to what I’d reply that in my passionate earlier years I’ve experienced and observed a lot and that includes breakfast with a smile and a prostitute at the corner’s coffee-shop and insanities between two persons in the row. Respect, pleasure and tenderness have nothing to do with ‘compensations’ or not, it’s just a behavior. We all know for instance how rude some people can be once they’ve paid for a service.
IMO a better life for all has nothing to do with or without “compensations”.
Five bucks? That’s how much it was in your youth, now they want fifty and get, probably, nothing. The Phone Culture University of Negotiation teaches lots of frustration. And they keep coming back…
The rest I can’t comment on but I knew kids with cars who did lawn jobs for free and had a friend who was arrested for paying for a lawnmower job.
So confusing. :)
Sugar babies are essentially concubines or geisha. Is it legal? I do not know.
At least ,for girls, it is better than prostitution. Relationship with one one “John” is much safer than standing on the corner or escorting.
Many here should get out more; Like a small
family grocery or farm store. It’s lot’s of fun
and all the ‘subject matter’ is on the shelves.
Much more fun than online bimbo’s n’ bar-sluts
This is not paying for sex unless that’s specifically stated. And there’s a record and law enforcement brings charges. It can easily be tax evasion if the limits of gifting are exceeded without paying taxes. The value of the gift and to whom it was given has to be reported. Oops.
These apps tie together, with really good records, a lot of activity that could be prosecuted if someone cares to. Google, always late to the game (not as late as MS, though) is smart to get rid of them. There’s nothing the stores ban that can’t be obtained elsewhere, though, so as Martin advised, don’t whine, sideload.
Follow the investigation of a really brilliant US politician from a particular southern peninsula state unfold to see where things like this go. Venmo and all that? High drama. Great records and the clown even looks like a weasel! Phones, except burners, and crime don’t mix.
Use a computer instead. :)
My favorite of these apps is FarmersOnlyDotCom. A beautiful woman walking through a forest with a gigantic chainsaw slung over her shoulder just happens to meet two hunks in a clearing? Too weird, too funny!
If you want to meet hot people, go where there aren’t any people?