• edwardbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I actually read somewhere that this is exactly the case they are making. It’s anti-consumer friendly or some dimwitted bulshit like that

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        What if a poor woman is on her pee rod and cancels in anger before we put her on the phone with our best beggar?

        She’ll need to sign right back up the next week when her pee rod anger is gone.

        Think of the poor woman.

        And what about dudes? No get laid for a month and start getting cranky. What if been kicked in the nuts and cancel in anger?

        Think of the poor shattered test tickle.

        Be consumer friendly, please. Think of the children with no inner net bcuz cancel was too easy for drunk parents.

        Think of the poor child.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          37 minutes ago

          You jest, but this may actually be an effective argument with the tech incompetent execs. Hopefully the FTC is more competent, but, somehow, I doubt it.

          Edit, Autocorrect

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Although when cancellation requires only one click, it doesn’t give consumers a fair chance to be interrupted by a pressing matter.