We have hundreds of years of examples of the blessed free market failing to do exactly that.

If the free market had it's way we'd still be under the yoke of Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

For the hundreds of years of examples, we have not had an interconnected network with information available to almost every human on the planet.

Not a free market project. Funded by the US military.

and quite a lot of research institutes around the world

Information is good, but it doesn't automatically imply that you have an actionable path in getting what's legally yours. Besides that, the Internet hasn't nearly eradicated the inherent information and attention asymmetry between consumers and companies employing people full time to make sure they end up on top for every interaction you have with them.

Consumer protection regulations, especially those regarded trading and credit, cast a very long shadow (ray of sunlight?) you're possibly unaware of, but still immensely benefit from.

Obviously there are diminishing returns and unintended/negative effects to consumers too sometimes, but throwing protections out completely in favor of a "pure free market" doesn't do these asymmetries justice.

Precisely. The overarching HN view, although it's not a monolith (so the viewpoint isn't shared by all), is that the free market solves for all things and regulation by the government is largely a waste of taxpayer money that could be going to other things worthwhile (roads, military, police).

I guess you mean the taxpayer money that the taxpayers are currently paying, against their will, towards unwanted subscriptions that they haven't managed to cancel.

I think the idea is that one day you too should found a startup that will provide services that are difficult to cancel.

Poe's Law truly is a terrible thing.

Because of the existing laws that allow companies to harass you if you don't pay what they think you owe them. Not to mention all the laws like copyright which prevent free competition in many spaces.

In a truly free market cancellation would be implicit by no longer paying.

The two issues (junk fees and obstacles to cancellation) are part of the same dark pattern.

There are primary indicators that you use to decide whether to make a purchase, and then there are other (let's call them secondary) indicators.

Primary is stuff like "the advertised price" and "the claimed features/service." Secondary is stuff like "have I ever heard that this company does shitty things" and "is there going to be a BS fee added to the total right before I click 'charge'?"

Once you're in their snare, a company benefits from being shitty. Plenty of people will pay the junk fee (did they even notice?) -- the important part is that your advertised price ranks near the competition. Plenty of people will sign up for a service that is difficult to cancel -- the important part is that the price starts out reasonable and that the service is adequate.

Even if the company is run by true saints, raising that sticker price to reflect the true price is anti-competitive! We can't be the only ones being honest! And they're right. That's why a law is needed to address it.

edit: Perhaps you were being sarcastic. Felt good to state my opinion, anyway :)