Challenge: a no should cost as much as a yes

Getting in is always easy. Getting out, almost never.

We all know it: you subscribe in thirty seconds, you cancel after a treasure hunt through menus, chats, forms and phone calls. European law has started to notice — the Digital Services Act prohibits interfaces that distort the ability to choose, and several national rules require cancelling to be as simple as signing up — but a rule without a measure remains a good intention.

The proposal

A simple, public exercise: count the steps.

1. Pick a service you use (streaming, gym, telecoms, software).
2. Count the steps to subscribe and to cancel: clicks, screens, fields, waits, calls.
3. Send me both numbers, with screenshots.

With the first answers I will build a public asymmetry index: for each service, the ratio between the cost of leaving and the cost of joining.

Why it matters

An architecture that makes yes easy and no exhausting is not neutral. You don't need to prove anyone's intent: just look at the slope. Every architecture tilts. The question is towards whom.

The best contributions will be credited by name.