The NY Times is notoriously the worst at this. It's almost impossible to cancel without wasting a couple hours of your time. Interesting how I can subscribe with a click but can't cancel with one.
Also I think HN and the technosphere in general is a little blind to the cost/benefit analysis of privacy for most consumers. People here have intimate knowledge of the technology and what can be done with information, so that's where they focus. Simple fact is there's a lot theoretical damage that could be done, but relatively little damage actually being done on an individual level for most consumers. Unless you're famous/important enough to be targeted by someone with resources, odds are even with zero privacy protections you'll get lost in the noise, or at most suffer trivial damage (having to cancel a stolen credit card or something)
I went through a phase where I tried to lock down my identity as much as possible, installed anti-fingerprinting browser extensions, forbade all cookies I didn't explicitly approve, individually selected sites to approve in NoScript, etc. It chewed up a ton of time, and when life happened and I was forced to re-prioritize my time and stopped maintaining it... nothing happened. It was the digital equivalent of installing steel shutters/doors and reinforced door frames so you can withstand a SWAT team with a no-knock warrant. Simple fact is the odds of encountering a SWAT team with a no-knock warrant are so low that it's statistically not worth the effort unless you're actually an outlaw.