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

Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

regulations.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 542 posts

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#281

Post by axiosgunnar »

zemo wrote: post #99
dylan604 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Etsy does a "Only 4 items left, but 7 people have it in their cart" or something similarly worded

Etsy users put things in their cart to bookmark them. I haven't been there for six years now, but one of the problems I worked on at Etsy was getting people to stop using their cart as a bookmarking tool. While I was there I worked on the functionality to fave an item as well as the functionality to add items to a List of favorites. There was another tool called Treasuries for this purpose that we phased out, so ther…

> Inflating the number intentionally would definitely be a dark pattern.

Inflating the number intentionally would be criminal fraud, plain and simple.

A dark pattern is making the „Delete account“ button smaller and grey while making the „No, take me back“ button huge and green.

Literally lying with the intent of getting money from somebody is fraud and has nothing to do with dark pattern.

Btw not attacking you personally, just wanted to clarify this misconception.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#282

Post by yawnxyz »

I hate it when Linkedin or Lunchclub does a "connect your friends!" and you accidentally click a button and it literally launches spam invites for your entire address book.

Worst part is that NO ONE has ever called them out for such a dark pattern, but the pattern forces ppl to send unsolicited emails to their contacts AND pretends it's meant to be sent by the person.

Incredibly devious

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#283

Post by thraway123412 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #248
thraway123412 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was not intended to be read as a literal quote or an attempt to make it appear as if you said something you didn't. That's a fairly common way of picking a message apart to make a point, on some parts of the internet. Sometimes people paraphrase instead of literally copying words (esp. if there's no good short sequence of words to borrow), but quote marks are still used. I wish we had a better notation for this.…

Understood. I believe that, as a software developer, I am constantly encountering the classic "Do $20,000 worth of work for me for free." If I refuse, it can sometimes get quite unpleasant. As it so happens, I actually do a great deal of free software. The users can sometimes be a bit on the "knucklehead" side, but they usually respect my boundaries. The people that don't, tend to be business owners. I sort of expect…

Sure. I think we mostly stand on the same line here.

I just tend to take hard stance against anything I find user hostile. Nagging, dark patterns, exploiting addictions, attempts at leeching personal information, lock-in, etcetra will quickly put you on my no buy list.

I think those things are evil at worst and a waste of time and resources (in a global, zero-sum way) at best, and long term we'd be better off if everyone rejected such behavior and put their money towards business that focuses solely on providing superb service without the abuse. Unfortunately these abusive practices tend to work as far as profit is concerned.. it's like tragedy of the commons, in a way.

I want to get paid too, and live in a nicer world.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#284

Post by mLuby »

sebmellen wrote: post #137
amluto wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Though I’m skeptical of cryptocurrencies as a market , I’m very bullish on the technology long-term for use-cases like this. Having programmable money where every party is able to audit something like a smart contract and see how their deposited money will be treated is huge. We could effectively get rid of pull-model money transfers and instead relegate similar functionality to open smart contract pools.

Even worse! Now you don't have protection from your credit card company not redress through the courts.

You already have the ability to "audit" the EULA/ToS/PP; it's that link you never click next to the "I agree" button.

The powerful (in money, size, skill, fame, strength, etc.) always try to (ab)use systems to bully the weak. Smart contracts only amplify their ability to do so.

Why would a company, which (reasonably) declines to deploy its limited legal resources negotiating with each user, possibly be interested in deploying its limited engineering resources to negotiate a smart contract with each user—especially when one screw-up can "legally" bankrupt the company? (See The DAO.)

If there can be no negotiation, the options are:

  1. You reject their terms and don't use the service.
  2. You accept their terms and legally use the service.
  3. They accept your terms and you legally use the service. (Usually too risky/costly for them.)
  4. You reject their terms and illegally use the service anyway.
We could legalize option 4, but that is a very bold move—the equivalent of the Chicxulub impact on legal and business practices.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#285

Post by bmuon »

tmpz22 wrote: post #230
bmuon wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really a dark pattern? There's tons of truly deceptive practices but this is one where websites are plainly asking for permissions.

Yes - they're circumventing the intent of the permissions restrictions implementation to the clear detriment of the user.

Highly debatable. In fact, trying to classify it as a dark pattern may derail the very valid discussion that the FTC is trying to have. There are significantly worse patterns out there. See [1].

What the push notification pattern is, is annoying. And it is specially annoying because of a prevalence of confirmation dialogs all over the Web with GDPR/CCPA, paid subscriptions, etc. But does it cause harm or monetary loss as the sneak into basket pattern? Or the opt-out unnecessary "insurance" that airlines continue to put in the checkout flow?

We do a disservice to ourselves littering the web with these constant asks. But it's not what needs regulation and enforcement.

[1] https://www.darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#286

Post by jozzy-james »

pranau wrote: post #108
chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #8

Windows 10 does not respect the "default browser" setting when opening web-based content through apps. For example, clicking on "Help" links or search results from the start menu always opens in Edge. This seems far worse than their IE-bundling issue back in the day... at least users have a few web browsers to choose from, but what good is that when user preference is overridden?

Apple does this as well on iOS where certain stock apps like Books always open links in Safari even when you have a different default browser set.

to be fair, there is nothing other than safari on iOS...despite the window dressing.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#287

Post by chrischattin »

AirBnB doesn’t show what the place actually costs until you get to the “Reserve” screen. Then the cleaning fee, service fee, occupancy fees and taxes are added up. I’ve seen it literally double the advertised price.

I’ve used AirBnB heavily over the past few years and am a huge fan of the business model in general. But, I view this practice as borderline unethical. I’m sure it A/B tests well, but it’s super annoying having to make several extra clicks just to see what you’re actually going to pay for the place at checkout.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#288

Post by bogwog »

jeremy_wiebe wrote: post #239
bogwog wrote: post #152

A common one is fake consent popups for system notifications. Websites need to ask for consent before sending system notifications via the Notifications API. If a user declines, that website is blocked from asking again (for obvious reasons) But many websites cheat this by showing a fake consent popup designed to mimic what the browser would show. If a user clicks "Decline" on the fake popup, the website won't show t…

This is commonly referred to as a “soft ask.” The reasons for it are not always nefarious. On some platforms you cannot provide any commentary on why you want to send push notifications and so the soft ask provides a way to give more context on the next (real) permission dialog. I’m not saying this isn’t abused all over, but when used effectively it can provide the user with more information to decide if they want to…

I'm not referring to "soft asks". The dark pattern is creating a fake dialog that mimics the real system dialog in order to mislead, and circumvent a feature designed to protect users from spam/abuse.

Telling a user why they're about to get a permissions dialog, and displaying a real system dialog, is obviously not a dark pattern.

They're common as hell, but I can't seem to find a live example of what I'm talking about right now.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#289

Post by jozzy-james »

crmd wrote: post #54
mimsee wrote: post #11

Ecommerce sites showing a "27 people are watching this right now" alongside the product but from source code it turns out to be a Math.random()

It’s fun to imagine the implications of dramatically raising the standard for commercial speech, such that statements which intend to mislead are prohibited.

apply it to physical stores, see how far it goes

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#290

Post by andy81 »

pja wrote: post #61

Hah. Literally an hour ago I fat-fingered the “Sign up to Amazon Music!” button in the Amazon Music App on my phone whilst putting the phone in my pocket. To be fair to Amazon though, they do let you cancel the subscription online with no bullshit & you still get to keep the 90 day free trial -- presumably they hope you’ll like the service enough to decide to pay for it anyway. (The worst example I know of this “sing…

Let's not give Amazon a free ride, cancelling the Prime trial was some real bullshit last time I tried.

The option was hidden behind several pages of "Here's what you'll miss out on" and "You still have x days remaining, why not check out these shows" and "confirm" buttons with slightly different position/text/color.

Post reply on HN