Posted on

Cancellation journeys that are substantially harder than enrollment

The fastest way to understand a subscription interface is sometimes to compare two journeys.

How many clicks does it take to join?

How many does it take to leave?

If enrollment requires one bright button while cancellation requires account menus, hidden links, retention pages, phone calls, limited support hours, and repeated attempts to keep the service, the difference is not merely cosmetic.

It changes how much effort the customer must spend to stop paying.

The Federal Trade Commission’s dark-pattern report calls these roadblocks to cancellation. Examples include allowing people to sign up online but requiring a different channel to cancel, hiding the cancellation phone number, limiting the hours of a cancellation line, or forcing the user through repeated sales pitches.

See the FTC’s Bringing Dark Patterns to Light.

Friction becomes part of the business model

Every additional step creates another place where someone can give up.

The customer gets distracted. The phone queue is too long. The cancellation link is not where expected. A retention offer looks like the final confirmation but actually keeps the subscription alive.

The FTC’s case against Amazon over Prime alleges that Amazon made enrollment easy while maintaining a complicated cancellation flow internally called “Iliad.” The agency says consumers had to navigate multiple pages and offers before completing cancellation.

See the FTC’s Amazon Prime case.

Leaving should be a normal product function

A clear exit process does not need to be identical to signup in every detail. A business may need to confirm identity, explain when service ends, or warn about data loss.

But the purpose of those steps should be completing cancellation safely, not exhausting the user until another billing cycle arrives.

FTC guidance on subscriptions has repeatedly emphasized that cancellation should be easy and simple, and at least as easy to use as the method used to enroll.

See the FTC’s subscription dark-pattern guidance.

The clean test is practical.

Can an ordinary customer who knows they want to leave find the exit, understand what it does, and complete it without being rerouted through unrelated obstacles?

If joining feels like opening a door and leaving feels like escaping a hedge maze, the imbalance is the feature.

Posted on

RSS subscriptions and discovery outside a ranked home feed

RSS does not decide what you should care about next.

It delivers updates from sources you already chose.

That sounds almost too simple now. A site publishes a feed. A reader subscribes. New entries appear in the reader. Depending on the software, they may be shown newest-first, grouped by source, filtered by rules, or otherwise organized by the user rather than by a platform’s central home-feed ranking.

The format itself remains actively maintained. The RSS Advisory Board continues to publish and support the RSS specifications and related guidance.

Subscription and discovery are different jobs

RSS is excellent at continuity.

Once you find a useful independent site, podcast, newsletter archive, or project blog with a feed, RSS can keep that source in your daily information environment without requiring the source to win a fresh ranking contest every time it publishes.

That changes the power relationship considerably.

A followed site cannot suddenly disappear because its latest post underperformed on engagement. The feed reader does not need to infer whether you are still interested. You subscribed. The update arrives.

But RSS does not solve the first half of the problem.

You still have to discover the source.

That discovery may come from search, a blogroll, a webring, a friend’s recommendation, a directory, a forum post, or pure accident. RSS becomes useful after that moment.

Reader control has costs too

A feed list can become overwhelming.

Subscribe to 300 prolific sites and a chronological reader can produce its own version of information overload. High-volume publishers dominate simply by publishing more. Quiet but valuable sources can still get buried under unread counts.

Different readers address this with folders, filters, starring, priority views, or manual cleanup. The important difference is that those controls are generally explicit and local to the reader.

The user can see the subscription list.

They can remove a source.

They can decide whether oldest or newest comes first.

That does not make RSS neutral. It makes the selection rule easier to understand.

A feed can preserve a relationship with a site

This matters for independent publishing because ranking systems repeatedly force small sites to re-earn visibility.

RSS allows a one-time discovery event to become an ongoing direct connection.

For Dead Internet Theory, that is useful because a site can appear to vanish from someone’s internet without disappearing from the web at all. It may simply stop surfacing in ranked feeds and ordinary search.

RSS offers a blunt alternative:

Find the site once.

Then stop asking an algorithm for permission to see it again.