Live data from Hacker News

New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

theguardian.com

191–200 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bigger difference is that the net utility for LLMs could turn out to be massively negative

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#192
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once wrote code that checks location before hiding/showing the cancel button. It’s really absurd that the nice experience exists on all subscription sites by now but you only get to see it if your state demands it.

I have no context of who you are/your position here, but the responses you're getting seem absurd to me. I just don't understand people placing the blame on you when it should be on your company. Most people in the world are just trying to keep their job - you did it. It wasn't something illegal, it was something that if you didn't do, you would have risked your job and then someone else would have done it anyway.

[deleted]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#193

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.

>This is what legitimate government looks like.

Do you mean good government? Or well-functioning? Any government that is formed legally is legitimate.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#194
post #17
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print. I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.

It's unfortunately somewhat common these days and personally I actively avoid any place which does this. At least it's only somewhat common rather than the standard so it's still possible. Couple of examples: https://sushiconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/sc_... "3.5% Living Wage Surcharge added to each bill which allows us to provide the service you have always enjoyed!" https://www.pacificcatch.com/menu/…

[deleted]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#195
post #18
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print. I don't think I go to the same restaurants as everyone else.

I tried searching for what a "lifestyle fee" is and all I could find is references to "living wage fee" which is essentially a forced tip added to the bill. A service charge for large groups though is understandable as they typically will require much more attention and work from waitstaff than the typical small dining party.

I'm somewhat skeptical that they actually require more attention per person. Does an 8-person group require more than 2x as much attention as a 4-person group?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#196
post #46
post #5

It's unclear whether this junk fee law will have teeth. In theory, California has the same anti-drip pricing law, but restaurants have a specific carve out [1] which is bullshit because the drip pricing that most people complain about is the X% "service charges" and "lifestyle fees" that restaurants have at the bottom of their menu in small print. From what I can tell online, NYC rules won't have this carveout, but I…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A requirement to obtain renter’s insurance is not an example of the type of fees this legislation is targeting.

It should also be illegal. If I want to risk loss of my personal property that should be my decision to make.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#198

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.

[deleted]

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#199

Probably a great decision, but why/how can it be decided at a local level by a mayor, instead of a federal level?

I don’t think it would be a federal concern, but a state one. However, in this case it’s because NYC law is typically allowed under NY state law to be stronger (but not weaker) than any corresponding state law.

NY law already requires easy cancellation https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/527-A?utm_sour...

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because increasing prices by that percentage is too hard?

They're trying their best to make it seem that government policies and regulation compliance costs are responsible, hence the names of these charges.

Well, they are responsible.
Post reply on HN