Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#51

Post by ryandrake »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #6
lenerdenator wrote: post #4

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.

Then explain why the rule was created in the first place?

This administration is making a pattern out of 1. Creating a rule or executive order to score easy political points with their base, and then 2. Immediately walking it back or “postponing” it once those points were scored and their base are not paying attention. Trolling-As-Governance.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#52

Post by hurfebuff »

fastball wrote: post #37
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"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.

Would you want a "click to subscribe" function that works like that?

I wouldn't, I would like some form of confirmation before buying a subscription. I don't see the problem in a unsubscribe function having a symmetrical confirmation in any service that doesn't try to trick me into a subscription. And actually, even more so for services that try to trick me...

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#53

Post by reverendsteveii »

fastball wrote: post #37
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"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.

I want the big cancel button

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#54

Post by smallmancontrov »

airstrike wrote: post #23
lenerdenator wrote: post #4

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".

Let's follow the money. A policy that pumps stocks by dumping labor + consumer rights delivers a roughly equal cost to everyone but delivers benefits in proportion to net worth. Suppose it pumps assets by 1%.

A $200k NW individual gets 2x cost and $2k gain.

A $3M NW individual gets 2x cost and $30k gain.

A $6B NW individual gets 1x cost and $60M gain.

A $400B NW individual gets 1x cost and $4B gain.

If it wasn't obvious, these numbers correspond to the Median American, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk. People whining about focus on ownership and complaining that all politicians are bad are drawing this equivalence across 3-6 orders of magnitude of incentive to do evil.

In contrast, I argue that incentives matter and that high NW individuals in politics have uniquely misaligned incentives. The focus on ownership doesn't just matter, it matters more than it ever did before.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#55

Post by hangonhn »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #7
sillystu04 wrote: post #5

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.

Why? They get revenue from unwanted transactions too.

I honestly would use a card that promises me easier subscription cancellation. In fact, I sort of do already: I use Apple's in app payment system to handle as many subscriptions as possible because of how easy they make it to cancel. I know Apple increases the cost to the service provider and they in turn charge me more but the ease of cancellation is worth it to me.

Now if a bank or card came along and provided the same (and maybe easy subscription management in general) they can have all my subscription revenue.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#56

Post by jjulius »

fastball wrote: post #37
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"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.

>Do you actually want there to be a big "Cancel" button in the top right corner of every subscribed service?

Yes.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#57

Post by Retric »

flatline wrote: post #30
airstrike wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

Just because they weren’t born into the owner class (or “capital class”) doesn’t mean they didn’t work their way into it. That’s kind of the American dream.

You can only become wealthy later in life at which point you can’t advantage your past self. Thus new money receives fewer benefits than old money from the exact same policies.

Further having 100m at 40 doesn’t suddenly bring the kind of social connections that going to the right schools and the right parties would. At the extremes, the average lottery winner is surrounded by people asking for help, the average Fortune 500 CEO’s social circle aren’t. So if they suddenly fall on hard times the lottery winner is stuck but that CEO may very well claw their way back.

It’s still possible for poor people to succeed and 3rd+ generation wealth to fail, but the odds are wildly different.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#58

Post by rtkwe »

SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"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?)

The one line description, of course, leaves tons of holes the actual rule does patch. The impulse to believe a rule or law has been implemented in the most smooth brained way possible is rarely correct. The actual rule includes language that say it should be as easy as the original sign up.

https://www.swlaw.com/publication/ftc-click-to-cancel-rule/#...

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#59

Post by tchalla »

fastball wrote: post #37
SoftTalker wrote: post #28

"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.

It's ok that you don't need something. That's fine. That said, we don't define policies based on your need. So, I won't disqualify your need. I would ask you to think more than you.

Re: The FTC puts off enforcing its 'click-to-cancel' rule

#60

Post by squigz »

fooblaster wrote: post #46
oblio wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's talking about the trump administration, not making a general point about all governments.

GP made no indication it was about this specific administration and not about government in principle.
Post reply on HN