4 ms·

The reality is we do, because on the web at large the scams are nonstop. Seriously try to unsubscribe from something. 80% of the time you have to call / reach

The reality is we do, because on the web at large the scams are nonstop. Seriously try to unsubscribe from something. 80% of the time you have to call / reach out to someone (for no reason). Or subscriptions auto-renew PRIOR to payment or notice, and commits for another year (looking at you anydesk and friends). And you can't cancel in advance but have to cancel only in a window 90 days before expiration. If you follow the lawsuits, half the folks in the alliance against apple have been sued for just horrible practices. All the govt seems apple to do is force absolutely insane popups EVERYWHERE that seem to do nothing to stop scams.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
You're describing the effects of bad laws and a lack of competition in the payment processing industry. Here's how it should work: You go to a website and give them your payment info. They initiate a payment request. If this is the first time you've ever paid them, you have 30 days to deny payments to that merchant. They don't get paid until then unless you manually approve them sooner. Then they can make future payment requests and get paid immediately until you revoke them. Subscription scammers get revoked, bye bye subscription scammers. But we don't have working standards for payment processing (a regulatory failure) so we don't have competition and payment services don't offer this feature. Then you want Apple to do it at the cost of 30%, centralization, censorship and other costs we ought not to be paying if we fixed the underlying problems.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  I'm not sure what fantasy you are living in. The DOJ and FTC which enforce "fair trade practices" have not focused on many obvious fair trade violations and crimes. Instead, their resources are directed at Apple for "crimes", not because Apple is where everyone is getting scammed, but because Apple is where folks are running to because of the failures of the DOJ and FTC. So how about they fix their issues (and the rest of the web) before going after apple?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    How about we do both, in which case we still want to do this one? People aren't running to Apple for this. Apple is using its market power to throw people a bone in the hope that it will make an excuse for all the other bad they do.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

You're describing the effects of bad laws and a lack of competition in the payment processing industry. Here's how it should work: You go to a website and give them your payment info. They initiate a payment request. If this is the first time you've ever paid them, you have 30 days to deny payments to that merchant. They don't get paid until then unless you manually approve them sooner. Then they can make future payment requests and get paid immediately until you revoke them. Subscription scammers get revoked, bye bye subscription scammers. But we don't have working standards for payment processing (a regulatory failure) so we don't have competition and payment services don't offer this feature. Then you want Apple to do it at the cost of 30%, centralization, censorship and other costs we ought not to be paying if we fixed the underlying problems.

tempnow987 5y ago
I'm not sure what fantasy you are living in. The DOJ and FTC which enforce "fair trade practices" have not focused on many obvious fair trade violations and crimes. Instead, their resources are directed at Apple for "crimes", not because Apple is where everyone is getting scammed, but because Apple is where folks are running to because of the failures of the DOJ and FTC. So how about they fix their issues (and the rest of the web) before going after apple?
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  How about we do both, in which case we still want to do this one? People aren't running to Apple for this. Apple is using its market power to throw people a bone in the hope that it will make an excuse for all the other bad they do.