Please don't do that; it's abusive towards the provider of the service you subscribed to. They deserve to be informed that you want to cancel, rather than to discover that you've unilaterally stopped fulfilling your side of a contract.

(Indeed, in many cases they might be within their rights to pursue you for non-payment, depending on the details of the agreement you entered into.)

I understand that in some cases, companies make their cancellation process so arduous and difficult to access that stopping payment seems the only option, but I don't think it's fair for users/consumers to treat it as a default method.

I don't just go to Paypal first necessarily. If it's easy and obvious I'll do it on the site then cancel in Paypal. But sadly most services don't make it easy so it's kinda on them if I go to PayPal first. Would be no different than if I used Privacy.com with a fake name. Good luck coming after me then.

Also fail to see how it's "abusive" since if you implement Paypal you should have your service setup to handle Paypal cancellations.

You talk about a provider like a person.

You can easily listen to webhooks for subscription cancellations, and you can also poll the API for subscription information - ideally both to guarantee consistency (watch+list pattern). Any non-trivial integration would have this. Don't blame end users for your tech #fails.

Even as I point this out I don't seem to understand your attitude, unless it's on behalf some lame shared cpanel hosting providers using some crappy billing software like whmcs - those providers lame everything on the customer.

Indeed. In fact in my previous project, I sent PayPal users to the cancellation page on PayPal itself if they clicked the "cancel subscription" link.

In order to correctly implement PayPal subscriptions, vendors must check the status of each users' subscription before renewing their service each billing period. If the vendor fails to do this, this is their problem, not the users'.