3 ms·

To preface, nothing against the poster since I know they were just copying the article title. This article headline is a bit misleading, as the FTC is not look

To preface, nothing against the poster since I know they were just copying the article title. This article headline is a bit misleading, as the FTC is not looking to ban the subscriptions themselves. Rather, they would like to implement a rule that requires servicers that provide subscriptions to make it as easy to cancel as it is to enroll, rather than the current jumbling mess that is trying to cancel something like a gym, Amazon, news, cable, or other subscription where servicers try to maintain retention by putting in a ridiculous number of hoops to jump through to cancel.

halJordan 4y ago
It's not a misleading title, it would be verboten to offer certain subscriptions. Which subscriptions? The tough to cancel ones. There are subscriptions offered today which would not be allowed to be offered.
- lax4ever 4y ago
  Servicers could change the cancellation process without ever changing the subscription itself. The issue at hand is not the subscription, but the process with which one would cancel it.
  - f272529 4y ago
    “Tough to cancel subscriptions” and “not tough to cancel subscriptions” are both subsets of “all subscriptions”. If the FTC has their way and the rules are effective, “tough to cancel subscriptions” no longer exist, and any subscriptions that previously belonged to that set now exist in the “not tough to cancel subscriptions” set. Effectively banning them. That’s how I interpret the title.
    - lax4ever 4y ago
      Which I believe actually helps to illustrate my point. The issue the FTC appears to have (and this comes from more than just this article) is with the cancellation process and not the subscription itself. The subscription is far more than just the cancellation process, just as a hard to find book is more than just its ease of acquisition. The enrollment (and if the FTC has their way, cancellation) processes of subscriptions are such a minor attribute to the subscriptions themselves that defining them by that attribute alone in an article headline seems like poor authorship. Is there some measure of semantics involved here? Quite probably, but then I say that in the world of professional writing and journalism I would expect a higher level of aptitude and proficiency. Being able to write headlines or article titles that remove as much of the semantic fuel as possible is, I believe, not an unreasonable request (or even requirement) for such professions, unless that is what the author is trying to achieve.

halJordan 4y ago

It's not a misleading title, it would be verboten to offer certain subscriptions. Which subscriptions? The tough to cancel ones. There are subscriptions offered today which would not be allowed to be offered.

lax4ever 4y ago
Servicers could change the cancellation process without ever changing the subscription itself. The issue at hand is not the subscription, but the process with which one would cancel it.
- f272529 4y ago
  “Tough to cancel subscriptions” and “not tough to cancel subscriptions” are both subsets of “all subscriptions”. If the FTC has their way and the rules are effective, “tough to cancel subscriptions” no longer exist, and any subscriptions that previously belonged to that set now exist in the “not tough to cancel subscriptions” set. Effectively banning them. That’s how I interpret the title.
  - lax4ever 4y ago
    Which I believe actually helps to illustrate my point. The issue the FTC appears to have (and this comes from more than just this article) is with the cancellation process and not the subscription itself. The subscription is far more than just the cancellation process, just as a hard to find book is more than just its ease of acquisition. The enrollment (and if the FTC has their way, cancellation) processes of subscriptions are such a minor attribute to the subscriptions themselves that defining them by that attribute alone in an article headline seems like poor authorship. Is there some measure of semantics involved here? Quite probably, but then I say that in the world of professional writing and journalism I would expect a higher level of aptitude and proficiency. Being able to write headlines or article titles that remove as much of the semantic fuel as possible is, I believe, not an unreasonable request (or even requirement) for such professions, unless that is what the author is trying to achieve.