Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dark Patterns

darkpatterns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Dark Patterns

#21

Post by octosphere »

Phemist wrote: post #7

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel like manipulation has a clear meaning for a lot of people, which I would define as attempts at making you do things against your best interest. This definitely applies to booking.com's multiple practices of creating artificial urgency, various website's "opt-in"…

It's probably called dark because the user is often 'left in the dark'[0] about how to use the interface

[0] https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/left+in+the+dark

Re: Dark Patterns

#22

Post by platz »

torben-friis wrote: post #15
Phemist wrote: post #7

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel like manipulation has a clear meaning for a lot of people, which I would define as attempts at making you do things against your best interest. This definitely applies to booking.com's multiple practices of creating artificial urgency, various website's "opt-in"…

We could rescue the classic "evil" to define them. Short, to the point and less abstract.

Not catchy enough

Re: Dark Patterns

#23

Post by octosphere »

Some services like Amazon make it outrageously difficult to leave their service. You have to contact support and the link is buried really deep in their site, you have to jump through serious hoops to leave their service.

There's a great site called Just Delete Me[0] that lists all the services where leaving / deleting your account is hard and the user is subjected to dark patterns.

[0] https://backgroundchecks.org/justdeleteme/

Re: Dark Patterns

#24

Post by hirundo »

Phemist wrote: post #7

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel like manipulation has a clear meaning for a lot of people, which I would define as attempts at making you do things against your best interest. This definitely applies to booking.com's multiple practices of creating artificial urgency, various website's "opt-in"…

Arguably you can be manipulative without being dark, e.g. manipulate people into returning to your website by making it attractive, fast loading, with lots of relevant, accurate, high signal to noise content. We tend to use the word to refer to dark manipulations, as in

> To tamper with or falsify for personal gain.

But it can be a positive thing as in about half of this definition:

> To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.

Re: Dark Patterns

#25

Post by iask »

nickjj wrote: post #17

I still remember one of the first businesses I did a contract for in the early 2000s wanted a hit counter on the bottom of their page. So I put one in but they wanted it to start at 10,000 instead of 0 to give a false sense that the site was popular. This stuff has been going on for decades.

I had similar experience. Back then, invoice numbers were short and sequential...I was asked to start it at 100001.

Re: Dark Patterns

#26

Post by tempsy »

And the “growth hackers” that came to prominence a few years ago that masterminded these dark patterns are now all VCs.

Re: Dark Patterns

#27

Post by TuringTest »

hirundo wrote: post #24
Phemist wrote: post #7

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel like manipulation has a clear meaning for a lot of people, which I would define as attempts at making you do things against your best interest. This definitely applies to booking.com's multiple practices of creating artificial urgency, various website's "opt-in"…

Arguably you can be manipulative without being dark, e.g. manipulate people into returning to your website by making it attractive, fast loading, with lots of relevant, accurate, high signal to noise content. We tend to use the word to refer to dark manipulations, as in > To tamper with or falsify for personal gain. But it can be a positive thing as in about half of this definition: > To influence or manage shrewdly…

Yeah, but the latter one is called "influence", not "manipulate". I think "dark pattern" is used because it's shorter and more evocative.

Re: Dark Patterns

#28

Post by nickjj »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #19
gnud wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this basically false advertising?

Arguably; it's not advertising the product itself (e.g. hotels). There's no rules against misreporting user or activity statistics as far as I know.

It is an interesting topic.

I never worked in a brick and mortar store but I wonder if they purposely only place 1 or 2 items onto a shelf to create a false sense of scarcity. Meanwhile they have a whole pallet of them in the back. As a customer you would never know but if it came down to taking legal action, it would probably be pretty hard to prove without a doubt this was done on purpose.

Scarcity or feeling like you're going to miss out on something (especially a deal) is a really powerful trigger. I generally ignore most advertising but man when you see that there's only 2 left of something you want on an online site, I would be lying if I said it didn't affect me. Luckily this tactic is less potent now for a number of things because so many online stores sell the same items.

Re: Dark Patterns

#29

Post by gameswithgo »

nickjj wrote: post #17

I still remember one of the first businesses I did a contract for in the early 2000s wanted a hit counter on the bottom of their page. So I put one in but they wanted it to start at 10,000 instead of 0 to give a false sense that the site was popular. This stuff has been going on for decades.

thousands of years

Re: Dark Patterns

#30

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #19
gnud wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this basically false advertising?

Arguably; it's not advertising the product itself (e.g. hotels). There's no rules against misreporting user or activity statistics as far as I know.

You're lying to make it seem more desirable; is there a difference between "20% more effective" and "20 people are looking at this"?
Post reply on HN