The desperation of NYTimes
New York Times sends non-unsubscribable onboarding emails and claims they violate CAN-SPAM norms out of desperation.
After subscribing to the New York Times for $2/month, the author received five marketing emails over five days with no unsubscribe option. The Times justified this in their footer by claiming these messages are "essential information" about the subscription relationship and thus exempt from opt-out rules, regardless of marketing preference settings. The author found this language transparent about the company's intent and counterproductive: it prompted him to verify his subscription would not auto-renew and left a negative impression. He contrasts this with his own business practices, which include unsubscribe links and account closure options in all emails, and argues that clean email practices and customer autonomy are growth drivers, not obstacles. He questions whether the New York Times faces such financial desperation that it resorts to these tactics.
What HN community is saying
Commenters broadly agreed the New York Times uses predatory subscription practices. One noted the company previously required phone calls during business hours for cancellation and only stopped due to legal pressure. Another highlighted that public library subscriptions offer free access (typically renewable every 1-3 days depending on the library). One defender cited the publication's value but acknowledged the cancellation friction without endorsing it. A recurring tension emerged: subscribers value the content but disapprove of dark patterns, with no clear mechanism to signal mixed feedback to the company.