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

61–70 of 225 posts

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

#61

Post by sorcerer-mar »

collingreen wrote: post #25
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, I agree. But GP was saying "government" writ large behaves XYZ.

Which absolutely does not imply a monolith of people all working in perfect lock step. It seems like you're looking to fight on the internet - would you consider a different activity instead?

> 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.

No I actually think it's important for people to square views like "government is a way to enrich the owner class" with actual reality, such as the fact that the government when administered by a different party did the exact opposite.

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

#62

Post by jabroni_salad »

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.

Could you describe your ideal cancellation workflow?

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

#65

Post by permo-w »

n_ary wrote: post #19
dspillett wrote: post #14

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.

with chargebacks there's also the concern that doing a chargeback for a few small things now makes you more likely to be rejected for something more important down the line

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

#67

Post by skeletal88 »

n_ary wrote: post #19
dspillett wrote: post #14

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.

The rule should be simple. Canceling a service should not be more difficult than starting it. It should be possible to do it in the same channel you started it. No "we only do cancellations over the phone, during business hours on tuesdays, with an hour long waiting time"

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

#68

Post by tobr »

squigz wrote: post #60
fooblaster wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s abundantly clear from context.

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

#69

Post by rixed »

oblio wrote: post #44
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.

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.

I don't see the contradiction between the two propositions "government is for the ruling class" and "there have been some progress". There are even economic theories that start from that tenet (globally referred to as "trickle-down-economics").

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

#70

Post by NewJazz »

Angostura wrote: post #40
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.

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

Well, you being collective.
Post reply on HN