5 ms·

I am fairly certain that it isn't generally illegal to lie to people. Maybe a little shitty, but isn't it shitty to not let people unsubscribe from a service in

I am fairly certain that it isn't generally illegal to lie to people. Maybe a little shitty, but isn't it shitty to not let people unsubscribe from a service in the same manner they signed up?

mehrdadn 8y ago
This isn't just lying though, it sounds closer to fraud to me (lying go receive services you otherwise wouldn't). It also sounds a bit like parking in the disabled section. And I don't know if there are legal ramifications for using services that are for the disabled but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
- c3534l 8y ago
  Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. And this one does the same? Who says that guy going through the emails for isn't otherwise going to be helping someone who is actually deaf? > This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services. This sounds like the most legitimate argument here, if this is indeed unethical. Not sure what my stance is on this.
    - moate 8y ago
      This is not a zero sum equation though. Responding to emails requires FEWER resources relative to having a service representative on a phone call. It creates a more efficient process, which is exactly why subscription based services don't want to do it. Friction in the cancellation process is desirable, because people won't put up with it and will stay with the service longer. From- Someone who works in billing for a SaaS company.
- rspeer 8y ago
  It's not like that at all, because it encourages more services for people with disabilities, instead of taking them away. Every site should be more prepared to accommodate people who can't or don't want to talk on the phone.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    > It's not like that at all, because it encourages more services for people with disabilities, instead of taking them away. I mean you could argue the same for parking right? If everyone parked in the disabled section then you'd encourage having more such parking. And this also requires paying a representative more hours to deal with emails etc. It's not like there's zero cost.
    - striking 8y ago
      They could use a thing called a website to help people do it automatically, which probably costs them less than the IVR or human rep on the phone. They just don't want that. Because they don't want you to cancel.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        I'm not saying what they want is good, I'm asking if what you (or OP rather) want is legal.
        cyphar 8y ago
        In most cases (private parking lots) it isn't illegal to take a disabled parking space. The fines a private company levies against you don't have any merit (though of course they can refuse you entry and sue you for damages or whatever). Parking spaces on public roads is a separate issue, and it's more in line with driving in a bus-only lane (technically illegal but it is because you need a particular permit -- so it requires more than just being disabled). My point is that your are jumping the gun with discussions of legality here. The litmus test should be wheter it's shitty to lie about a disability in order to cut through reselling bullshit. Other commentors have more than adequately covered this topic though.
- ChristianGeek 8y ago
  More like pooping in a handicap stall.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Or walking up a sidewalk ramp, or using the headphone jack at the ATM, or using the handicapped stall in the bathroom, or taking the elevator instead of the stairs...
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    If you use the handicap stall in the bathroom because you like the extra space, and then handicapped person comes in who actually needs the rails, and can’t use them, isn’t that a bad thing?
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Sometimes the bathroom is busy, and everybody gets to wait for a stall. Its not the end of the world.
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      Sure, just like taking an elevator to the 2nd floor because you don't want to take the stairs.
    - SerLava 8y ago
      Not really. Handicap bathroom stalls are never handicap exclusive. Sometimes there isn't even a second, non handicap stall. It isn't like parking, because 99.9% of the time, it's in and out in a couple minutes, and 100% of the time you are physically present in the stall. But if you take the only parking spot, that person pretty much has to go home. The car could be there for hours, even the whole day. Versus two minutes. This huge moral difference is accurately reflected in the law- it is absolutely, perfectly legal to use a handicap stall without a disability.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  So I didn't downarrow you, but I think I can explain why you have been. You are conflating morality with law. Law can be amoral, and illegal actions can be moral.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Weird, because I thought everything I said was about the legality aspect, at least until other people suddenly started bringing ethics and morality into the discussion. Am I wrong about this?
    - elm-tree- 8y ago
      Bringing up such a minor illegality implies you care about the morality of it. If somebody was speeding and I said “hey, you know speeding is illegal right?” they would rightfully think I have some sort of weird moral problem with speeding.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        > Bringing up such a minor illegality implies you care about the morality of it. If somebody was speeding and I said “hey, you know speeding is illegal right?” they would rightfully think I have some sort of weird moral problem with speeding. Huh... that's actually very much the opposite of how I would interpret that sentence, but okay.
        Skunkleton 8y ago
        Maybe this is presumptive of me, but you should consider not just the the words you say, but also their implication. Most other people will, and if you don't you can't communicate effectively.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        I thought we just concluded that the problem is that we come to different conclusions about what the implications actually are, not that I didn't consider the implications? When someone asks me if I know something is illegal, to me, it seems they are being quite explicit that they are talking about legality and not morality, since otherwise they could tell me that that something is not cool, not that it's not legal. To me this is obvious, but maybe everyone else finds this strange and this is evidence that I just think weirdly, I don't know. But either way it's certainly not that I don't try to think in the first place.

I am fairly certain that it isn't generally illegal to lie to people. Maybe a little shitty, but isn't it shitty to not let people unsubscribe from a service in the same manner they signed up?

mehrdadn 8y ago

This isn't just lying though, it sounds closer to fraud to me (lying go receive services you otherwise wouldn't). It also sounds a bit like parking in the disabled section. And I don't know if there are legal ramifications for using services that are for the disabled but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

c3534l 8y ago
Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > Parking in a handicapped spot takes resources away from people who need it. And this one does the same? Who says that guy going through the emails for isn't otherwise going to be helping someone who is actually deaf? > This gets around an unethical business practice designed to charge money from people who no longer agree to receive services. This sounds like the most legitimate argument here, if this is indeed unethical. Not sure what my stance is on this.
  - moate 8y ago
    This is not a zero sum equation though. Responding to emails requires FEWER resources relative to having a service representative on a phone call. It creates a more efficient process, which is exactly why subscription based services don't want to do it. Friction in the cancellation process is desirable, because people won't put up with it and will stay with the service longer. From- Someone who works in billing for a SaaS company.
rspeer 8y ago
It's not like that at all, because it encourages more services for people with disabilities, instead of taking them away. Every site should be more prepared to accommodate people who can't or don't want to talk on the phone.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > It's not like that at all, because it encourages more services for people with disabilities, instead of taking them away. I mean you could argue the same for parking right? If everyone parked in the disabled section then you'd encourage having more such parking. And this also requires paying a representative more hours to deal with emails etc. It's not like there's zero cost.
  - striking 8y ago
    They could use a thing called a website to help people do it automatically, which probably costs them less than the IVR or human rep on the phone. They just don't want that. Because they don't want you to cancel.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      I'm not saying what they want is good, I'm asking if what you (or OP rather) want is legal.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        In most cases (private parking lots) it isn't illegal to take a disabled parking space. The fines a private company levies against you don't have any merit (though of course they can refuse you entry and sue you for damages or whatever). Parking spaces on public roads is a separate issue, and it's more in line with driving in a bus-only lane (technically illegal but it is because you need a particular permit -- so it requires more than just being disabled). My point is that your are jumping the gun with discussions of legality here. The litmus test should be wheter it's shitty to lie about a disability in order to cut through reselling bullshit. Other commentors have more than adequately covered this topic though.
ChristianGeek 8y ago
More like pooping in a handicap stall.
pavel_lishin 8y ago
Or walking up a sidewalk ramp, or using the headphone jack at the ATM, or using the handicapped stall in the bathroom, or taking the elevator instead of the stairs...
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  If you use the handicap stall in the bathroom because you like the extra space, and then handicapped person comes in who actually needs the rails, and can’t use them, isn’t that a bad thing?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Sometimes the bathroom is busy, and everybody gets to wait for a stall. Its not the end of the world.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Sure, just like taking an elevator to the 2nd floor because you don't want to take the stairs.
  - SerLava 8y ago
    Not really. Handicap bathroom stalls are never handicap exclusive. Sometimes there isn't even a second, non handicap stall. It isn't like parking, because 99.9% of the time, it's in and out in a couple minutes, and 100% of the time you are physically present in the stall. But if you take the only parking spot, that person pretty much has to go home. The car could be there for hours, even the whole day. Versus two minutes. This huge moral difference is accurately reflected in the law- it is absolutely, perfectly legal to use a handicap stall without a disability.
Skunkleton 8y ago
So I didn't downarrow you, but I think I can explain why you have been. You are conflating morality with law. Law can be amoral, and illegal actions can be moral.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  Weird, because I thought everything I said was about the legality aspect, at least until other people suddenly started bringing ethics and morality into the discussion. Am I wrong about this?
  - elm-tree- 8y ago
    Bringing up such a minor illegality implies you care about the morality of it. If somebody was speeding and I said “hey, you know speeding is illegal right?” they would rightfully think I have some sort of weird moral problem with speeding.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > Bringing up such a minor illegality implies you care about the morality of it. If somebody was speeding and I said “hey, you know speeding is illegal right?” they would rightfully think I have some sort of weird moral problem with speeding. Huh... that's actually very much the opposite of how I would interpret that sentence, but okay.
      - Skunkleton 8y ago
        Maybe this is presumptive of me, but you should consider not just the the words you say, but also their implication. Most other people will, and if you don't you can't communicate effectively.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        I thought we just concluded that the problem is that we come to different conclusions about what the implications actually are, not that I didn't consider the implications? When someone asks me if I know something is illegal, to me, it seems they are being quite explicit that they are talking about legality and not morality, since otherwise they could tell me that that something is not cool, not that it's not legal. To me this is obvious, but maybe everyone else finds this strange and this is evidence that I just think weirdly, I don't know. But either way it's certainly not that I don't try to think in the first place.