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

211–220 of 363 posts

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#211

Post by blackqueeriroh »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #126
atonse wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Those low quality comments are an example of the sad erosion of quality of comments on HN that I and others have complained about in recent times.

It's perfectly valid in our increasingly enshittified world to be angry with all those responsible for it. As much as you're right to point the finger a the C-suites, ultimately ALL of these user-hostile features, every single one, only exists because devs keep putting fingers to keyboards in exchange for checks. Tech workers had a time where unionization and getting a voice in our companies was very much on the tabl…

This is a deeply ignorant comment. Do you understand how much money you have to have IN SAVINGS in order to be able to weather even a moderately short hospital stay in the United States when you’re uninsured?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#212

Post by blackqueeriroh »

LadyCailin wrote: post #188
mschuster91 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’d be surprised.

Also, people’s sense of goodness doesn’t pay rent or ensure food is on the table.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#213

Post by blackqueeriroh »

CSMastermind wrote: post #166
quickthrowman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has ~2% of the US population, and it’s a relatively wealthy slice compared to the mean. NYC has roughly 13x as many people as the entire state of Wyoming. I could see a company writing off Wyoming entirely (not likely, but possible) but not NYC. States like CA, FL, NY, and TX can pass state laws that create defacto national regulations through sheer size, but smaller than that and you’ll have trouble.

Sure but say some company based in Lousiana has a website that violates NYC law. What exactly will NYC do about it? Is there some mechanism to for them to block the website inside of NYC? The company would presumably have no property they could seize or employees they could imprison. If it were a state passing the law then they could sue for enforcement in federal court but I don't think a city could?

Surprise! They can imprison the employees

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#214

Post by _factor »

walt_grata wrote: post #156
acdha wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blame goes to everyone involved. From the decision makers to the implementors

Mostly lack of competition and anti-trust regulation. Who would use a worse service when a healthy alternative exists?

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#215

Post by sillyfluke »

voidhorse wrote: post #167
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.

Mamdani has been doing great in NYC so far. The hope is that he will inspire similar behavior in others. And drive similar approaches to politics in other constituencies.

Is there a website for New York City where people can petition for things like this?

If there's anybody from the mayor's office reading this, how about that all banks must provide their services at minimum on a browser through a web app and cannot mandate the use of a smartphone.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#216

Post by evolve2k »

erentz wrote: post #210
SoftTalker wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.

In Australia we have very strong consumer protection law, here it’s expected (by the bank usually) the landlord has at least a minimum “landlord insurance” that covers all that stuff.

For anything not covered, where a tenant does damage thats what the bond is for.

Renter insurance should be optional.

Actually I’m surprised that landlord insurance is not already occurring, imagine a building with 100 apartments, I’m sure the bank would ask the landlord to have a single cover over 100’s of little crappy policies.

If renter insurance is required by regulations, this is likley another good target for policy change.

Americans really do get screwed in so many ways.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#217

Post by SoftTalker »

evolve2k wrote: post #216
erentz wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.

In Australia we have very strong consumer protection law, here it’s expected (by the bank usually) the landlord has at least a minimum “landlord insurance” that covers all that stuff. For anything not covered, where a tenant does damage thats what the bond is for. Renter insurance should be optional. Actually I’m surprised that landlord insurance is not already occurring, imagine a building with 100 apartments, I’m s…

Same here. This has only been a thing recently when landlords figured out they could make money selling the insurance. When I was a renter, insurance was never required from me.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#218

Post by Gigachad »

voidhorse wrote: post #167
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.

Mamdani has been doing great in NYC so far. The hope is that he will inspire similar behavior in others. And drive similar approaches to politics in other constituencies.

I'm actually struggling to believe he's done all this stuff. Like it's crazy to see it was possible to fix everything the whole time and all it took was slightly increasing taxes on billionaires and not being corrupt.

Re: New York City to ban deceptive subscription practices

#219

Post by acdha »

Larrikin wrote: post #183
acdha wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Keep thinking about the parallel you’re drawing and you might hit the difference: that phrase gained notoriety in the Nuremberg trials for murder but somehow we do not give the same weight to, say, a pushy salesman or a debt collector or a government employee enforcing strict means testing laws. Is it possible that our moral sense can account for things being less severe than murder and draw a distinction between actual Nazis and people doing what they can to survive in an unforgiving country with few supports?
Post reply on HN