131–140 of 542 posts
The worst one is probably trying to make it hard for users to stop paying for a service, like cancelling a subscription. That shit should be punishable by literal prison time.
It's not like it would have to be super technical, most judges would have no problem interpreting it.
I think a more effective route forward here is for places like YC to set standards for their portfolio companies. Only the strongest investors can do this, but once they do, it will setup a new playing field and the YC brand could mean 'no dark patterns here' in the way that buying an Apple product signifies quality hardware and privacy. It could act as an 'integrity' label that companies purchasing software would us…
I'm thinking that that guy on youtube who builds cabins from scratch in Canada with the charming Golden Retriever ('My Self Reliance') probably has the right idea. Maybe the right answer is a terminal that does email, banking, and Amazon.
The worst one is probably trying to make it hard for users to stop paying for a service, like cancelling a subscription. That shit should be punishable by literal prison time.
Just use Privacy's virtual cards to sign up for services. If a service doesn't let you cancel, just cancel the card itself. That's what I've been doing. Of course, it's a different story if you signed some kind of contract, but for the pay-montly kind of things, it's a no brainer. You also keep your real cards number private in case the service gets hacked and Privacy doesn't seem to check the name, so you can give a…
Edit: crap, looks like it's US-only :/
Great I'm going to submit one about how the Apple iOS store forces you to get rid of your old devices and buy new ones. They make it extremely inconvenient to find out which apps are supported on your device. They don't hide the apps that aren't, so you are forced to download the app and wait to check to see if it's compatible or not.
I think this falls a little below the level of what should be a federal crime. It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is up to individual developers and not Apple. (It cuts both ways: there are some apps that aren't updated to run on the newest devices. So you could take that as Apple encouraging you to keep your old device and to NOT upgrade.) Think about it this way: you want t…
Does Apple show you apps that won't run on the newest devices/OS versions in the app store?
>It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is up to individual developers and not Apple.
But Apple runs the store, so the onus on them is to present the store in a way that gives me what is compatible with my device. When I go to the physical store, I don't expect to find kid's sizes in the adult clothing section (and vice versa). Even if the "clothing developer" in question only makes child sized clothes.
>prosecute
Whoa, hold on. We're in a thread asking for public comment on dark patterns.
Look at point 6 in the event announcement PDF:
> What harms do dark patterns pose to consumers or competition? For example, do certain dark patterns lead consumers to purchase products or services that they might not otherwise have purchased, pay for products or services without knowing or intending to, provide personal information, waste time, spend more on a particular product or service, remain enrolled in a service they might otherwise cancel, or develop harmful usage habits?
(emphasis mine)
>Consumers aren't getting severely fucked, it's just kind of annoying to some people.
Sorry, I'm not understanding your point. Most dark patterns don't severely fuck anyone and are just kind of annoying to some people. I think that's the point of this FTC public comment - to get a consensus on what dark patterns are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm highly in favor of making this illegal. My credit card expired and I switched my NYT subscription from through their website to through Apple (so I could cancel), and they sent my account to collections! Working with the collections agency to get it removed was easy, however. I guess the law that I would be in favor of is twofold: 1) You must be able to cancel subscriptions from the same website that you created…
I would be in favor of a different approach: a merchant should not, under any circumstances, be able to remove money from an account, charge a credit card, or otherwise take money from someone without the explicit authorization of the customer. In this context, explicit means one of two things: 1. The customer intentionally authorized that specific transaction. A specific transaction means one transaction. If a merch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just use Privacy's virtual cards to sign up for services. If a service doesn't let you cancel, just cancel the card itself. That's what I've been doing. Of course, it's a different story if you signed some kind of contract, but for the pay-montly kind of things, it's a no brainer. You also keep your real cards number private in case the service gets hacked and Privacy doesn't seem to check the name, so you can give a…
This looks like a great service! Edit: crap, looks like it's US-only :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 10yrs ago NBA did this to me. They made it impossible to cancel a $99/m sub. Their instructions were login and go to the cancel button but the cancel button was broken and said call this number. But no one ever picked up the number. I will never buy a NBA branded thing after that obvious bullshit scam.
New York Times does this also. As far as I can tell it's literally impossible to cancel a subscription. I had to close the card attached to my account.
If you have problems cancelling a subscription, you can simply cancel the temporary card that privacy.com created for you