←back to thread

571 points gausswho | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.754s | source
Show context
John23832 ◴[] No.44509670[source]
What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?

This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

replies(10): >>44509742 #>>44509759 #>>44510095 #>>44510337 #>>44510719 #>>44510834 #>>44511178 #>>44511684 #>>44511936 #>>44516884 #
hiAndrewQuinn ◴[] No.44510095[source]
The standard capitalist response would be, it serves the consumer of a service who wouldn't be willing to pay more for the additional guarantee of click-to-cancel.

It doesn't seem that farfetched to me to imagine two sites offering equivalent services, one at $5/month and the other at $6/month, with the only difference being the $6/month site offers click to cancel. This dollar price difference is often the difference between the life and death of a company.

A harsher way of phrasing it would be this serves the consumer who actually pays attention to their bills. I've had a cheap gym membership sitting around for a few months that I haven't gone to. I don't want to go to the effort of cancelling it, because that's hard. My sloth subsidizes the gym goers who actually do use the service every day and pay less than they otherwise would for the privilege. Poor, lazy, stupid people like me should still be given the option to spend our money in poor, lazy, stupid ways.

replies(4): >>44510427 #>>44511072 #>>44512290 #>>44516344 #
GolfPopper ◴[] No.44511072[source]
What's described here is really just legalized thievery with extra steps. "We make it difficult to stop paying us" versus "we charge extra for the privilege of not making it difficult to stop paying us" is just fraud versus extortion. That one or both may be technically legal is no excuse.
replies(1): >>44511929 #
hiAndrewQuinn ◴[] No.44511929[source]
It's not legalized thievery to make it nonfree to exit a contract you voluntarily signed up for in the first place. That's ridiculous and hyperbolic.

People do it all the time, at all levels of scale and severity. You might as well take issue with the US government not having a "click to cancel" option on NATO or something.

replies(3): >>44512134 #>>44512760 #>>44512823 #
1. TheCoelacanth ◴[] No.44512823[source]
If it was an actual contract that you signed, then I might agree, but this is just clicking a button on a website. That type of "contract" should be sharply limited in what terms it can include.
replies(1): >>44513790 #
2. hiAndrewQuinn ◴[] No.44513790[source]
It is generally an actual contract. When you sign up for a service like Netflix, you are agreeing to a legally binding document, outlined in a document commonly known as "Terms of Use" or "Terms of Service." To artificially limit this contract would be to impede freedom of trade, which generally leaves everyone worse off, not better.
replies(1): >>44513867 #
3. TheCoelacanth ◴[] No.44513867[source]
Freedom to trick unsophisticated consumers with giant stacks of legalese is not a freedom worth preserving.