The Federal Trade Commission has adopted a rule that will require businesses to make it easy for consumers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and memberships.
Why all big money donors to Harris asked her to remove Khan. Does anyone know Harris stance on this? We know for a fact Trump will boot her and we start getting fucked again. What will Harris commit to?
She said multiple times before being the candidate it would never be considered. I don't see her being asked or answering any questions about it publicly, but the blowback from the party would be swift and immense, and pretty much lose her any centrist anti-monopoly party votes if she's tries to run again, which is a big crowd.
This is awesome, we need more rules like this, and Khan is absolutely nailing it. But I'm worried it won't stick. I think companies have taken our absentmindedness and laziness for granted, and have made tons of money because of it. I don't think they'll give that up without a fight, but hopefully they lose. Unless the Supreme Court gets involved, and then we can all but guarantee they'd rule against these consumer protections.
“Too often, businesses make people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement. “The FTC’s rule will end these tricks and traps, saving Americans time and money. Nobody should be stuck paying for a service they no longer want.”
It's such a basic and obvious consumer protection.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticized the administration’s approach, saying in August that “heavy-handed regulations that micromanage business practices” will lead to higher costs for consumers.
this is either them saying since they cant mooch off people who want to cancel they will raise prices... or that somehow making a "cancel" button online will cost more in staffing, neither is an amazing pov to have
The Chamber of Commerce, whether the national one or your local group of rich assholes, are only for the benefit of business over the consumer. And they deliberately encourage public confusion. Many (most?) people think they are a government agency and not just a group of corporations colluding in the common interest of making as much money as possible.
Yes, that's why I included it with my comment. Their either claiming that somehow that is going to raise costs, for that they're going to lose more money because people are actually able to not pay for the thing they didn't want to pay for
the US Chamber of Commerce is almost entirely an advocate of bad ideas. Generally most companies don't mind promoting and taking credit for good ideas. You push it in the chamber of commerce when you know its a shitty idea and you don't want credit for it.
Just deleted Uber from my phone. If they're gonna use my payments to turn around and lobby to keep me locked into subscriptions that don't even involve them, I'm gonna be a lyft guy from now on.
Thanks for looking it up. It was a few years ago, so maybe I messed up the details along the way or the local branch manager was just being a dick to prevent a lost membership.
I mean, there are definitely people in the government working on it, but those often require much more substantial reforms and systemic changes before the changes could functionally work. (i.e. banning data brokers would kill off most free services, or banning targeted ads would kill most ad-funded news networks)
If you haven't already, I recommend using the EFF's Action Center to let your representatives know about specific changes you would and would not want made to our laws to protect privacy, free speech, and digital innovation, according to what they've found to be the most pressing issues at the moment.
My understanding is that Net Neutrality is not the same as privacy. The first is concerned with providers not discriminating against the data being sent/received. The second is about tracking all the data that is being sent/received (and more).