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

New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#181

Post by antiframe »

lostlogin wrote: post #159
jzer0cool wrote: post #25

Nintendo (subscription I have for my switch to access some older a classic games btw) is very good reminding me I have a subscription and whether I want to cancel (or renew). I don't have the email at hand but what I remember is thinking they really desire you to reflect to cancel (rather than a push to renew) if not wanting continued service. Sentiment of politeness and I find a good example what to do. Also, not a…

Unless I’ve missed something, Nintendo seem to have really good business ethics.

I agree. I do wish they would use replaceable batteries outside the EU, where they are mandated, though.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#182

Post by culi »

colechristensen wrote: post #180
ianmarcinkowski wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have similar feelings. I am sympathetic to a perspective that says this is not the responsibility of a mayor of a single city... But also; who else is going to do it? Normal people have very little say over the politicians that govern them in larger electoral regions like states or provinces, and maybe this can signal to other levels of government that they should implement similar rules... If it works.

>I am sympathetic to a perspective that says this is not the responsibility of a mayor of a single city... But also; who else is going to do it? With a population of 8.5 million if NYC was a state it would be the 13th largest so I'm quite all right with the city going beyond the normal purview of a city government.

And if it were a country, it would be the 10th largest economy in the world and the 105th most populous

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#183

Post by Larrikin »

acdha wrote: post #105
Larrikin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don’t like it either but blame goes to the top of the org chart. That’s not illegal or, by the standards of the field, flagrantly unethical so it’s a bit extreme to expect someone to resign over.

You were just following orders, that's a great argument

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#184

Post by dang »

gumby wrote: post #16

These rules are great but “landmark” seems like puffery, as California has had such rules for quite a while. Ironically that has meant it’s hard to unsubscribe from the New York Times except in California.

I took the "first" bit out of the title above - thanks!

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#185

Post by morkalork »

I don't understand because I'm not American but how does New York the city have such powers? At least where I am, cities aren't really "real" in that they are constructs the provincial government creates (and can uncreate). A city here could never make such a ban.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#186

Post by LadyCailin »

SecretDreams wrote: post #173
59percentmore wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the difference between what he's done and, say, the practice of the people who peddled opioids for a paycheck is one of degree, not kind.

Yeah, but it's multiple orders of magnitude apart. Are we also going to start putting LLM engineers to the fire because they're accelerating the enshitification of our world? Probably not.

That’s not a good example, since you can argue that LLMs have utility to humanity. Hiding the cancel button has none, except for rent seeking.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#187

Post by nxm »

socalgal2 wrote: post #147
sxp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA: > Rule from Mamdani administration ... targets ‘junk fees’ > The city is also targeting so-called “junk fees” that raise the final price of everything from apartments to sporting events, with a proposed rule that requires sellers to “advertise the total price for any good or service, including all mandatory additional charges and fees, up front”, according to a release shared with the Guardian.

The latest one for me is renting a new apartment, getting told it cost $XXXX a month, then being told I'm required to have $XXXXXX amount of renter's insurance at $XXX a month and oh, by the way, click here to use ours.

Renter’s insurance is not a fee.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#188

Post by LadyCailin »

mschuster91 wrote: post #142
IshKebab wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At the end, someone will be there desperate enough to follow the boss's whim. Always. That is why regulation is so important.

We need regulation, yes, but also people who have a sense of goodness. We can’t legislate every aspect of a respectable society.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#189

Post by hughw »

ianmarcinkowski wrote: post #155
SkipperCat wrote: post #138

This is what legitimate government looks like. Leaders actually advocating for the people who are being deceived by those in power instead of helping those in power. While this may be a trivial issue, being able to cancel a gym or newspaper subscription, it sends a signal. Companies need to view customers as partners in a business transaction and not objects to be exploited.

I have similar feelings. I am sympathetic to a perspective that says this is not the responsibility of a mayor of a single city... But also; who else is going to do it? Normal people have very little say over the politicians that govern them in larger electoral regions like states or provinces, and maybe this can signal to other levels of government that they should implement similar rules... If it works.

CFPB once played that role for financial services. Ah well.
Post reply on HN