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

391–400 of 542 posts

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

#391

Post by [deleted] »

smichel17 wrote: post #220
nitrogen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Firefox provided two intents (does Android still call it that?), one for normal browsing and one for private browsing. Then any app that opens a link doesn't automatically get your active cookies from your main browser if you don't want it to.

Settings > Private browsing (under Privacy and security) > Open links in a private tab An alternative is to use Firefox Focus (Firefox Klar on F-Droid) as your default browser, then its "open in" feature if you want to make it a permanent session.

[deleted]

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

#392

Post by inetknght »

max_ wrote: post #218

The failure is is not regulators that have failed to "regulate". It is designers of the tech (browsers, Operating systems) that have failed to come up with systems that are difficult for devs to abuse.

It is absolutely a failure of regulators to regulate. It's not only a failure of regulators.

Designers of the tech are doing it because it's legal.

It's legal because regulators aren't enforcing laws in ways conducive to modern tech.

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

#393

Post by anoncake »

shkkmo wrote: post #250
jeremy_wiebe wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An informative prompt explaining why permissions are needed with a single continue button is not a dark pattern. If you have a "decline" button that bypasses the browser, then you are using a dark pattern.

As long as it doesn't mimic the browser. (Another reason why user agent strings and other ways websites can identify the user's browser are a bad idea).

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

#394

Post by judge2020 »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #281
zemo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perso…

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

With the amount of Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) out there, I doubt any case has proven this to be something you can bring charges against a company for.

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

#395

Post by anoncake »

zepto wrote: post #279
lima wrote: post #51

Slack has a fun dark pattern - they purposefully remove functionality from their web app to make you install their native app. The web app has a workspace switcher sidebar, but it only appears on ChromeOS, where you can't install the native client. https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144258/slacks-we...

Does this mean that all apps that can’t also be used via the web are a ‘dark pattern’? I ask because I can easily imagine that if most customers are using apps, they might choose to remove functionality from the website rather than maintain it, just because it’s not worth it.

Slack uses Electron, doesn't it?

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

#396

Post by judge2020 »

easterncalculus wrote: post #207

One example for sure is the endless CAPTCHAs you receive on virtually any large website when you attempt to connect from TOR. Each time you solve one it takes forever just to complain about how you spending several minutes selecting every 'light' suddenly isn't good enough to prove your humanity. You're not "checking if I'm human" 60 times in a row, you're blocking me for not wanting to be tracked on your website.

I doubt this one would get any traction given there's no way to tell between between a human and a bot request when the past 10k requests from a single IP all hit within 10 seconds of each other, likely indicating a bot. They're not going to outlaw a solution to a real problem when there's no other solution besides requiring an account or otherwise decreasing user privacy.

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

#397

Post by andreareina »

MereInterest wrote: post #336
steve-benjamins wrote: post #296

Web.com charges 13 months in a year. They bill months in 4 week intervals— so a month = 28 days which = 13 months per year. This is all in their fine print. Screenshot: https://twitter.com/stevebenjamins/status/138531992456700313...

Ooh, your twitter link reminded me of a twitter dark pattern. Twitter makes a distinction between a visitor who has never had an account, and a visitor who had an account but is currently logged out. I made an account in order to test their API, then logged out. From then until when I cleared cookies from twitter, every publicly visible post was denied access, prompting me to log in to view them.

Same with Google Groups

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

#398

Post by anoncake »

ryandrake wrote: post #328
yawnxyz wrote: post #282

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

This one is kind of on the os platform though. I can’t think of a legit use case where an app should get access to every single contact in my address book. This is incredibly personal information, and should be guarded better, perhaps by asking consent for each access and for each contact. The app should have to explain in detail why it wants access to a particular contact.

> I can’t think of a legit use case where an app should get access to every single contact in my address book.

To manage your contacts? The permission to access all your contacts does need to exist, even if it's currently overused.

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

#399

Post by jrockway »

Spivak wrote: post #203
jrockway wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the explicit authorization is the contract you sign that allows for the subscription. It's already pretty risky to loan people money, and your system makes it even riskier. (Consider the business model of cloud providers; you agree to pay for whatever you use, and then they charge you for last month's usage. If you could just not pay, then the business wouldn't really be viable. You'd have to figure out what…

This is literally what “sending you a bill” is. They don’t need to have an upfront agreement to charge your card. They need an upfront agreement that you will pay for services used at the end of the month. This is standard invoicing that these companies already do just without automatically charging cards. When you pay your medical bills it’s still an explicit payment.

So for newspapers and whatnot, the bill is the problem, not charging your credit card. You can close your credit card to stop the payment, but you can never get out of a contract you signed.

Businesses probably need contracts in order to function, but they are overused in business-to-consumer transactions. That's the underlying problem that we should solve -- you should be able to walk away, no questions asked, from paying for a newspaper or magazine.

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

#400

Post by yuliyp »

ryandrake wrote: post #305
bmuon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 los…

The pattern tries to avoid an outcome desired by the user: permanently revoking consent for some permission. Only asking when you are confident the answer is Yes goes against the intent of the platform functionality, and I’d argue that’s a major dark pattern. Similar to how apps used to ask “how do you like app?” And then only prompt to review the app if you responded favorably. Goes entirely against the app store’s…

Some apps use it reasonably: they'll remember if you said no, but do want to provide more messaging around why they're asking.
Post reply on HN