Comment by roenxi
5 days ago
Are we still talking about click-to-cancel here? There aren't 'other sides' in any meaningful sense on this sort of administrative decision. There is a solid consensus that people shouldn't have to pay for subscriptions they don't want and a couple of broadly inconsequential points to debate on how to implement it.
This is exactly the sort of situation where just following all the rules and procedures is fine and it doesn't, within a pretty broad range of outcomes, who gets final say.
The "other side" here is the political group that is consistently anti-regulation, anti-consumer, anti-government.
The "other side" does not consider themselves anti-consumer. You disagree with them on what anti-consumer means, but they have their own reasons to consider their position pro-consumer and you are doing debate a disservice by ignoring that.
They do consider themselves anti-regulation and anti-government in general, but they are not (mostly) anarchists, they do agree with some regulation and government, they just want the minimum possible and thus place a high bar on how bad the alternatives must be before they will agree to regulation/government.
Thanks for chiming in and pointing this out. I, too, am frustrated by the setback of this nullification.
In my original comment, I was talking about the general case for due process. "Progress" is almost as useless a category as "good" and "bad".
Debates have become astonishingly partisan.
Do they actually consider themselves pro-consumer, do they lie and say that, or do they keep quiet about it and let you assume that?
I for one was definitely speaking about the general case, not this particular case. My point was that due process is not, generally speaking, a bad thing - even if it means that "progress" is sometimes a little slow to come by.