41–50 of 225 posts
[flagged]
Delaying the enforcement to July makes you right?
"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too." That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)
Do you actually want there to be a big "Cancel" button in the top right corner of every subscribed service? I personally don't want that. Click to cancel? Sure. But perfectly symmetrical is not something I need and in many cases not something I want.
Yes, since the alternative is what you have now: impossible to find and if you find it highly annoying. Even if you have the law which says "canceling must be as easy as subscribing" like where I live it still isn't even close due to efforts of government creating a law but failing (by design) to fund the agency tasked with keeping the companies in check.
That symmetrical registration/cancellation is being slow-walked like this is absurd (but under this admin, certainly not surprising).
It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.
Visa/Mastercard have enough power to enforce this on their own. Although obviously regulation would've been better. If a bunch of elected officials wrote letters to execs and a couple of NYT articles were written about the issue, Visa/Mastercard might be motivated to help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.
Nihilism is useless. We've made enormous progress since the first human stepped on this planet so I would say we've disproven nihilism for good. Modern governments are definitely not purely tools for the owner class to enrich themselves.
"If you can sign up online, you must be able to cancel online, too." That leaves a lot of room for the "Cancel" option to be buried in an obscure hard to find part of the website. I'd have hoped there was a requirement for it to be as prominent and as easy to find as the "Subscribe" option (and maybe there is, just not mentioned in this piece?)
Do you actually want there to be a big "Cancel" button in the top right corner of every subscribed service? I personally don't want that. Click to cancel? Sure. But perfectly symmetrical is not something I need and in many cases not something I want.
ABSOLUTELY YES
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chargebacks might upset that being a big benefit, and being the firm that takes a stance for customer care could be good advertising fodder. Though I don't see it working unless they both do it in step which minimises the useful effect of that against each other. It could still be a benefit vs other payment methods, what is PayPal's policy on such things?
Number of people afraid to pickup the phone and talk to another human being instead of letting few hundred in forgotten subscription is larger than I previously thought. By that sense, without any data, I suspect that chargeback amount is wayyyy smaller headache compared to txn fees from forgotten uncancelled subscriptions.
Try to call comcast and actually speak to a customer service representative. Try it. I dare you. I bought a new modem last year and simply needed to provision it on the service. I got caught in bot limbo so long my only recourse was to scream 'cancel my account!' over and over until I actually got a human on the line. I'm sure that will be automated away at some point too.
Visa/Mastercard have enough power to enforce this on their own. Although obviously regulation would've been better. If a bunch of elected officials wrote letters to execs and a couple of NYT articles were written about the issue, Visa/Mastercard might be motivated to help.
The NYT itself uses the dark patterns for cancellation that would be forbidden by this rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.
"owner class" is too outdated and myopic. It's also incorrect, as plenty of people born into low income households go on to become elected representatives. It's better to think about it in terms of "people who choose to pursue positions of power to benefit themselves financially while cosplaying as wanting to help the average person".
There now it’s both. They want to own agency if the idea of owning stuff is too gauche for modern audiences.