Like all such processes, this one is defined by people, and implemented mostly in terms of a set of actions available to those employees of the corporation who handle cancellation requests. Telling such a person that you&#x27;re deaf, and thus unable to communicate by voice telephone, is no less a lie because that person happens to be acting on behalf of his employer. If your morality forbids lying, then this lie violates it no less than any other.<p>There seems to me a somewhat troubling trend of reaction to the widely derided &quot;corporate personhood&quot; principle in law, by deliberately depersonalizing such &quot;persons&quot; to an extent which appears to me to increasingly include not only the &quot;corporate person&quot; <i>per se</i>, but the actual <i>people</i> persons who constitute that corporation, and who implement and act upon its policies - to regard the modern corporation as a faceless alien behemoth, after all, is of necessity to overlook the fact that it is an organization of people, in theory (if to a somewhat greater extent than in practice) around a common goal.<p>Your comment here is squarely in this line. &quot;There&#x27;s no person there&quot;, after all, is blatantly erroneous: of course there is a person there, otherwise there&#x27;d be no one to whom to worry about lying. It&#x27;s been a while since I last reread <i>The Authoritarians</i>, but I seem to remember this kind of depersonalization being a significant theme in its analysis of how your category of authoritarian followers become willing to countenance human rights abuses. In that light, it surprises me to see you express a perspective which includes precisely that kind of elision, and I&#x27;m curious whether you see a substantive difference where I do not.