5 ms·

How could ANYBODY vote against this?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Mental models are tricky. Some people believe there is a right to pull a fast one on others or make their life hard in the name of revenue or business. As coldpie said: > Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter. (high empathy justice sensitive human)
kristofferR 2y ago
It's "anti-business" (read: pro-consumer).
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Tbh I don't think it's _even_ anti-business; if people were more comfortable with subscriptions, which this should achieve, they would be more willing to enter into them. It's anti-bad-business, granted, but you'd probably expect it to if anything increase commerce in the long run.
minkzilla 2y ago
Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissenting-statement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Automatic renewal is convenient and appreciated when you like the service. It's a dark-pattern underhanded dirty trick when you don't.
  - ARandomerDude 2y ago
    This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art. Her basic points are: 1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship. 2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal authority. The more they push the boundary, the less authority the FTC will have in the long-run. 3. The rule is too broad. Broad regulation is bad because it leaves too much legal wiggle-room for violators with deep pockets and smart lawyers. At the same time, small businesses who may be acting legitimately can't know they'll be accused of violating overly broad rules, or afford to defend themselves if they draw government scrutiny. 4. The FTC has a specific procedure it needs to follow for making a rule but they didn't follow that procedure. 5. Because of the above, the rule will be challenged by BigCo and struck down in court, wasting time and harming the FTC's reputation. I'm hopeful about a "Click to Cancel" future (who wouldn't be?) but it's pretty hard to dismiss those points as "typical pro-business grift".
    - the_gastropod 2y ago
      If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      So might not be legal?
    - antonyt 2y ago
      I think this is just the form that "typical pro-business grift" takes these days. "This [entity] has no legal authority to do [obviously good thing]" is a favorite justification for obstructionists in power at every level of government to ensure nothing gets done. They seem to conveniently drop this position when the action in question is pro-business.
llamaimperative 2y ago
[flagged]
- macinjosh 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sure, that is how it was designed. The reason it doesn't work that way anymore is because of a continuous parade of states violating Americans' rights, each one so egregious that people said "yeah, it was designed the way macinjosh describes, but boy it turns out a lot of these state 'cultures' or 'identities' are producing despicable outcomes for our fellow Americans, and we should step up to prevent those abuses."
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      "I know better than the people that voted for their own state government so I am going to force my will upon them." Mindsets like this are actually why democracies fail.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        What? In that case, why have a state government? Why not have everything determined county-by-county? In fact, why have it be county rule? Why not just neighborhood by neighborhood? You place the locus of control according to the problems you need to solve. Neighborhoods combine to cities combine to counties combine to states combine to countries in order to be competitive and thrive against the broader environment. Yes, it does typically entail a loss of autonomy, but the benefit is that your little independent enclave doesn't get taken over by the next-strongest neighbor.
        sickofparadox 2y ago
        Why vote at all? You don't care about the consent of the governed, we should just make you chairman of the federal government and have your enlightened rule bring us to a new era of prosperity!
invaderzirp 2y ago
A lot of people's salaries depend on screwing over customers.

Mental models are tricky. Some people believe there is a right to pull a fast one on others or make their life hard in the name of revenue or business. As coldpie said: > Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter. (high empathy justice sensitive human)

kristofferR 2y ago

It's "anti-business" (read: pro-consumer).

rsynnott 2y ago
Tbh I don't think it's _even_ anti-business; if people were more comfortable with subscriptions, which this should achieve, they would be more willing to enter into them. It's anti-bad-business, granted, but you'd probably expect it to if anything increase commerce in the long run.

minkzilla 2y ago

Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissenting-statement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...

Workaccount2 2y ago
[flagged]
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Automatic renewal is convenient and appreciated when you like the service. It's a dark-pattern underhanded dirty trick when you don't.
- ARandomerDude 2y ago
  This is why you shouldn't let ChatGPT do your thinking for you. Skimming is an important art. Her basic points are: 1. The FTC doesn't have the authority to make this rule, and in government there must be a hard line between "I want this" and "this is legal" unless you want a dictatorship. 2. The reason the FTC has so many Congressionally-enacted laws to follow is because of a history of overstepping its legal authority. The more they push the boundary, the less authority the FTC will have in the long-run. 3. The rule is too broad. Broad regulation is bad because it leaves too much legal wiggle-room for violators with deep pockets and smart lawyers. At the same time, small businesses who may be acting legitimately can't know they'll be accused of violating overly broad rules, or afford to defend themselves if they draw government scrutiny. 4. The FTC has a specific procedure it needs to follow for making a rule but they didn't follow that procedure. 5. Because of the above, the rule will be challenged by BigCo and struck down in court, wasting time and harming the FTC's reputation. I'm hopeful about a "Click to Cancel" future (who wouldn't be?) but it's pretty hard to dismiss those points as "typical pro-business grift".
  - the_gastropod 2y ago
    If someone were just attempting to maintain a "pro-business grift", wouldn't this be exactly the argument they'd make? That the FTC is, effectively, legally toothless?
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      I mean, making rules that will end up getting over turned in courts, setting a precedent is also exactly how you end up making institutions toothless (see, the recent supreme court decision that overturned Chevron). I'm totally for this type of regulation though, it's just that I don't think that their argument is bad at all.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    So might not be legal?
  - antonyt 2y ago
    I think this is just the form that "typical pro-business grift" takes these days. "This [entity] has no legal authority to do [obviously good thing]" is a favorite justification for obstructionists in power at every level of government to ensure nothing gets done. They seem to conveniently drop this position when the action in question is pro-business.

llamaimperative 2y ago

[flagged]

macinjosh 2y ago
[flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Sure, that is how it was designed. The reason it doesn't work that way anymore is because of a continuous parade of states violating Americans' rights, each one so egregious that people said "yeah, it was designed the way macinjosh describes, but boy it turns out a lot of these state 'cultures' or 'identities' are producing despicable outcomes for our fellow Americans, and we should step up to prevent those abuses."
  - sickofparadox 2y ago
    "I know better than the people that voted for their own state government so I am going to force my will upon them." Mindsets like this are actually why democracies fail.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      What? In that case, why have a state government? Why not have everything determined county-by-county? In fact, why have it be county rule? Why not just neighborhood by neighborhood? You place the locus of control according to the problems you need to solve. Neighborhoods combine to cities combine to counties combine to states combine to countries in order to be competitive and thrive against the broader environment. Yes, it does typically entail a loss of autonomy, but the benefit is that your little independent enclave doesn't get taken over by the next-strongest neighbor.
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        Why vote at all? You don't care about the consent of the governed, we should just make you chairman of the federal government and have your enlightened rule bring us to a new era of prosperity!

invaderzirp 2y ago

A lot of people's salaries depend on screwing over customers.