Live data from Hacker News

US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

apnews.com

161–170 of 217 posts

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why it's done that way. Because the tax is different in every state, county, city, and sometimes an even smaller region. There is something like 2,500 different tax jurisdictions in the USA. It would be difficult for national brands (or even local brands) to do any marketing or advertising that includes prices, because they would either have to put a range on their ads, or possibly eat all their profit…

Many other countries have all-inclusive prices. Most of Europe from my experience. I wonder, how do they handle it? One solution could be to price things such that any amount of tax is included in the margin so the price is standard but profitability varies in minute ways between locations (which it does anyway due to labor, transportation, advertising density, etc.).

> One solution could be to price things such that any amount of tax is included in the margin so the price is standard but profitability varies in minute ways between locations

Imagine you have customers in California (high taxes) and Wyoming (low taxes). You have one price, but the taxes in the former nets you zero profit. But, that's also where 98%+ of your customers are. That isn't going to work, needless to say.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"legal notice in a newspaper" is still very much a thing in common law jurisdictions, with a long history, see banns going way back https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banns if you change your name you need to put it in the newspaper, and https://futureofnewspapers.net/how-to-place-a-legal-notice-i... There are many different types of legal ads, with different costs to advertise. The most common type of legal notice in Ne…

I am well aware of that, but there is a very huge and crucial difference between putting something in the newspaper for the sake of public dissemination vs. for the sake of making sure one specific known private entity gets the information. The only case I can recall off the top of my head for the latter is for things like service of judicial papers, and even then as a last resort, only when direct attempts to reach…

And yet, in the US, you can have process servers publish a notice in a very specific law newspaper that only lawyers ever read, then claim that you couldn't reach someone who would never in their life read such a newspaper for decades simply to see if they've been served.

If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, and yet somehow, we still do it. What Sweden does sounds no different, except it's companies with millions of dollars who could actually afford to check these things.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#163
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh my student loans went to a new servicer who I swear to god is paid by the email sent to me. I get an email letting me know when the payment is coming out (hint: it's the same numeric day as last month, plus or minus a day to account for non-banking weekend days) and the amount (hint: it's the same amount it always is, because that's how payments work) and then I get an email from them after my payment completes a…

With respect to the first part of your comment, I'd much prefer overcommunication of financial transactions about to happen and acknowledgement that they did rather than the other way about. And some communication about changes in Ts&Cs is often required. Those often come by physical mail. A lot of people here probably prefer more notifications about things like credit card transactions. I don't personally but many d…

This is all well and good, if it can be turned off if set.

People used to find out about financial transactions monthly with their bill in the mail. It's fine to have more info, but that doesn't mean it must be forced upon us.

And the transactions described are not really out of the blue financial transactions. The first message is about transactions that happen every. single. month. There's no need to say "we're going to do what you want us to do". That's silly. An agreement was already signed to that effect. The person knows it's going to happen. It's just 100% wasted, useless info.

And while I know you're responding to the 'first part' of the post, the communication I'm describing in my (GP) post, is about just random emails with no actual value.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero incentive for a company to invest in tooling and tech to make processes that lose them customers more efficient. This is something that has to be regulated and enforced. I just don't see a c-suit clamoring to spend money on making it easier to leave.

There is a reason to invest in this, the rationale goes as follows: Some of my customers will legitimately need to cancel, unsubscribe, stop using, or whatever, but they like the product. If I piss these customers off, they may recommend against using it, and refuse to ever use it again so I should accept that they're leaving with grace and maybe they'll return later. You can offer to "pause" a subscription for examp…

I was pretty sure we'd abandoned the "but it would hurt the business and they'd change their ways" fantasy years ago, because a) it doesn't, and be) they don't. How's Equifax doing these days? Oh yeah, totally fine.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#165
post #34

It's nice when the government improves the quality of life for regular people at the expense of businesses who are using dark patterns. I'll be sure to remember this in November. Here's more info on the initiative: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

The timing of this and other announcements is not by accident though. Expect a handful of populist announcements leading up to some "October" surprise that has been in the works for some time. It will be most obvious when it is generally favorable and can proceed without the need for two-party agreement.

Personally, I don't care when the government does something generally favorable. If you think this is just a vote grab, I would invite you to consider similar consumer protection action by this administration, most recently around junk fees, whose timing was not really around a general election.

Of course, these really aren't big enough needle movers to be so cynical about & I trust this as another small and steady step in the same direction this administration was already going in. I mean, if this was something related to cancelling student debt or using the bully pulpit to pressure congress into rescheduling marijuana, I'd take your point. But when a certain political party is doing a few things here and a few things there that are good for consumers, that's actively earning votes as opposed to simply trying to not be the lesser of two evils.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#166
post #157

Disclosure: I only read up until it was revealed what the policy was. This was always my opinion on this. "As easy to cancel as it is to sign up". It's simple, and completely shuts down this malicious behaviour without making it harder to operate for the honest companies (or worse for customers in any way I can think of). Usually these policies have downsides but I can't really think of any. This kind of behaviour is…

> As easy to cancel as it is to sign up I think that’s not enough in some cases. Signing up requires inputting a bunch of data; unsubscribing should be 2 clicks at most, no logins.

How would you unsubscribe from a subscription service without logging in and confirming your account?

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware of that, but there is a very huge and crucial difference between putting something in the newspaper for the sake of public dissemination vs. for the sake of making sure one specific known private entity gets the information. The only case I can recall off the top of my head for the latter is for things like service of judicial papers, and even then as a last resort, only when direct attempts to reach…

And yet, in the US, you can have process servers publish a notice in a very specific law newspaper that only lawyers ever read, then claim that you couldn't reach someone who would never in their life read such a newspaper for decades simply to see if they've been served. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, and yet somehow, we still do it. What Sweden does sounds no different, except it's companies with mi…

As I mentioned, AFAIK that's only as a last resort once you've been unreachable via other means, which doesn't sound ridiculous at all. Is that not the case?

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the asymmetry? And what do you have in mind when you refer to "two-step sign up"?

For my convenience; and by two-step sign up I mean "enter my e-mail into a form, then receive a confirmation e-mail and click on a confirmation link to be actually subscribed".

Are you confusing this with email newsletter subscriptions? This is talking about paid membership services, the kind of thing where you need an account and often payment methods.

Re: US Government wants to make it easier for you to click the 'unsubscribe' button

#169

Re: hidden fees, I still do not understand why most US purchases treat tax as if it does not exist until you're at the cashier. You have to sort of know what the state tax is (I'm not a US resident, so I do not have that information at hand), and then do the calculation mentally. I think this is quite disfavourable to consumers.

That's exactly why it's done that way. Because the tax is different in every state, county, city, and sometimes an even smaller region. There is something like 2,500 different tax jurisdictions in the USA. It would be difficult for national brands (or even local brands) to do any marketing or advertising that includes prices, because they would either have to put a range on their ads, or possibly eat all their profit…

> That's exactly why it's done that way. Because the tax is different in every state, county, city, and sometimes an even smaller region. There is something like 2,500 different tax jurisdictions in the USA.

It's quite ridiculous.

I played around once with the tax rate and boundary files [1] provided by the ~23 states that are in the Streamlined Sales Tax system. I remember finding several cases where a tax boundary ran through an office complex so the tax rate would be different between 123 Fake Street, Suite 100 and 123 Fake Street, Suite 200.

This is very annoying because it means to compute the tax you need a full address. For online sales of downloadable digital goods tax is often the only thing you need a full address for. For the actual sale all you need is a credit card number, the card security code, the billing zip code, and an email address to send a receipt to. And actually you usually don't even need the security code and billing zip but not providing them may lead to higher fees due to increased fraud risk.

Looking up tax by full address is annoying because the address people think they are at often doesn't quite match the official address for that location. They might use the wrong directional prefix or suffix, or put them on the wrong end, or give the local nickname people use for a street instead of the actual name, to give a few examples.

I found a way that worked surprisingly well, despite that. I'd take the address as supplied by the user and find the zip code and the building number. I'd then select from the boundary database all locations that matched the zip and building number.

So say the address is 123 NW Fake ST, Mycity, Mystate, 12345. I'd find all boundary file entries with zip 12345 and an address range that included 123. Note this just looks at number and zip, so would not include Fake ST but also any other street in that zip that includes house number 123.

For each of those I'd make the full address from the boundary file: building number, then any direction prefixes, then street name, then any type suffixes ("St", "Ave", etc), then any direction suffixes, then city, then state, then zip.

I'd then compute the Levenshtein distance between each of those and the address given by the user and take the one with the smallest distance.

Anyone know how the companies that provide tax lookup services handle this? I assume they do something way more sophisticated than my hack described above.

[1] https://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/Shared-Pages/rate-and-bo...

Post reply on HN