The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides(nirandfar.com) |
The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides(nirandfar.com) |
1. It is good to call out hypocrisy like this article does where a publishing entity is engaged in behavior completely contrary to the behavior called for in their published words.
2. It is also good that the reporter’s journalism is sufficiently free (as in freedom) that they are able to write so independently of the behavior of the mother ship.
Like, the world would definitely be a worse place if reporters at Bloomberg declined to do some of the excellent reporting they’ve done on tech company tax dodges just because (hypothetically) Bloomberg was a tech company that did some corporate tax dodging. It’s good that they do it. It’s also fine that people note the cognitive dissonance.
It’s sort of like how I feel about Googlers protesting sexual harassment or the China search project. Personally I still think they are affiliated with a company that engages in a lot of bad practices but good on them for at least trying to change some thing however small. And at the same time I feel free to say “well ya they’re protesting this guy who was abusing his underlings but their company is abusing all of us” or whatever.
What does this mean? Are you speaking to the author of the parent comment or in general? What is this un-orderliness you've alluded to?
Or maybe they are completely oblivious and blind. Possible explanation as well, very common for people who criticize others before looking at themselves.
They would insist that they were right if I ever asked them to clarify the units of measurement. One time the salesperson was so sure that he was right that he conferenced in a tech support person…who informed him they did not sell megabytes/second, only megabits. The salesperson was very confused.
I no longer even bother asking anymore.
For example people will often say give me that liter of wine, when in fact the bottle it’s 750ml and not a liter per se.
Now I just don't read articles from the NYT.
That's fairly easy to deal with. Answer every question, argument, and pitch from the representative with "please cancel my subscription".
That gets 'em through their script faster.
I have expressed in no unclear terms that I want to cancel my subscription and I don't want to answer any further non-essential questions about it. Any further questions that are not legally necessary to terminate our relationship will be considered usage of my professional consulting services at the rate of 10$/minute for which I will send you a bill after the call finishes. How may we proceed?
I'd love to know what would happen next.
That said you might have certain consumer protections you're not aware of. I had cell phone plan with Comviq here in Sweden that I wanted to cancel and they said on their website that I needed to call. Swedish law requires my being able to cancel in various ways (e.g. sending a letter, or sending an email, etc.) regardless of what they said in their initial contract. So I found an address and just sent them an email stating I wanted to cancel. In a day or two it was done. I presume they know they are legally required to do so and so they did what I said, but I'm also sure they happy to provide conflicting information making consumers unaware of their rights. I reported their website to our consumer protection authorities, but I never heard back.
You have to wait for his weekly mail or add "unsubscribe" to the URL.
You're absolutely right to call out bad behavior of the subscription department, but the "liar, liar" heading is unfair.
But the free market will regulate itself! /s
What else are laws for?
The New York Times criticizes dark patterns, but fails to criticize themselves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120686 - May 2021 (31 comments)
It was very simple for me to cancel my NYT subscription. I got a new credit card because the old one was getting mysterious charges on it. I forgot that NYT had that card on my subscription. I soon started getting dunning notices on it, and logged in to change the card number. The NYT kept rejecting the new card, and I gave up.
No more NYT for me!
Generally speaking I try not to sign up for any service where the terms are deeply onerous or the industry has a bad reputation (like with gyms). For most SaaS and other online subscription models, I've found that cancelling a card is a pretty easy way to let the subscription lapse.
Whereas if a company makes cancelling/renewing super painless I'm going to come and go as a customer as it fits my needs. This results in more overall business for the company.
I am literally going through this right now: A company called "Ooma" makes dongles that provide voice-over-IP for landline phones (inc. a telephone number), for $10/month with "no contract." But our use-case isn't every month, it is once every few months, and they require call-to-cancel/hassle-to-cancel, so now we're reviewing alternatives that are more legitimately flexible.
They're literally going to lose my recurring business only because of this anti-consumer practice.
I cancelled my Netflix at the same time and have come and gone several times since, as they make it as easy as possible.
You drain user trust for short term gain. What is the point of continuing to take someone's money if they no longer use your product? If someone doesn't want my product, I sure as hell don't want their money and would be embarrassed if they ever paid by mistake
I recently had to call NYT to cancel my membership. The person on the other side ran me through a script, and each time I told them I didn’t want their counter offers. It was annoying.
To be honest here, I canceled my NYT subscription because of the very subtle yet obvious propaganda laced in their articles on a recent news event. They present themselves as honest reporters, when in reality there’s language that in a subtle manner takes a clear side and provides a distorted view of a complex situation.
The honest truth in my opinion is the NYT isn’t honest or more objective than other papers. Yet time and time again, their reporting is viewed as gospel.
if you can sign up for the membership online. there is no reason to call anyone to cancel. Netflix is by far the best subscription service. i have sub, unsub and resub several time with just few clicks.
Prime case in point: They have elevated opinionated moral crusading over responsible and informative reporting. If moral activism is the value the organization purports to elevate, it’s fair to call the organization dishonest when it employs transparently immoral business practices. Whether the editorial board is involved or not.
If a cub reporter wants to run a story that will piss off your largest advertiser, I can guarantee that it will be discouraged by any editor interested in keeping their job.
Been there…
How is author not including his own employer in the article a sign of separation.
And yet you will never see the editorial side write negative things about the business side of the newspaper.
People bring up this distinction that there is some barrier between the two, but its a very weak argument, since the incentives of both are the same (to increase the newspapers revenue)
I do think the paper made a huge mistake in eliminating the public editor position, which was essentially dedicated to criticism of the paper.
I think you would be surprised with how little the editorial team at newspapers concerns themselves with revenue. It's to the point where it's often actually harmful to the organization.
In the same way, it is very fair to call out hypocrisy in the NYT’s behavior, even if it happens in two different units of the business. They don’t get a pass just because one unit happens to be journalists or something.
Neither is amazon.
Their regular prices are somewhat inflated, but registering a deal alert on slickdeals/etc. would get you annual pricing similar to https://slickdeals.net/f/14599963-1-year-of-the-economist-ma...
The author of the NYT piece is a member of the editorial board so he should be held to a higher standard than employees of a business that protest its practices, while probably having no power over setting them. A member of the editorial board is certainly in a more powerful position, relatively speaking, to make changes in their newspaper and surely he could have talked about the example set by the business he works for. If Google came out with PR that pointed at Apple tracking users of its phones, something that is factually true, they would be rightfully laughed at because they are the last ones that can complain that someone tracks people.
No one has ever said this. Ever. In the history of ever.
Wine and spirits in the US were sold as "fifths" or one fifth of a US gallon, equal to 757ml. This became a "metric fifth" or 750ml. No one is even slightly confused by this.
I understand what you're saying, but it's a bit disappointing that the company doesn't train their salespeople to understand the bullet points they're trying to sell. This isn't really CCNA-level knowledge.
1. By the bottle. Bottles are usually 750ml, but 700ml and 1000ml are not that rare. In any case, you bought that bottle of that specific wine brand/year. The quantity is whatever the producer decided. The price is per bottle and quantity doesn't factor in.
2. By volume. This is only used when you buy in bulk. You go to a winery where they have huge barrels with a faucet. You can taste the wine and then buy any quantity you want (you can even bring your own container).