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

A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

minimizedistraction.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 285 posts

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#231

Post by sillysaurusx »

dcposch wrote: post #220
sillysaurusx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminalization of dark patterns? It’s not impossible to imagine — intentionally tricking a user is sometimes called fraud — but I’m not sure we’ve thought through the implications of criminalizing website design. The biggest companies are the ones least affected by regulation, because they can invest resources into complying. Small startups sometimes can’t. A teenager in their bedroom usually can’t. And that’s no sm…

The standard solution is to exempt small organizations. It's why, for example, you can start a company with minimal accounting. When you hire your first employee, your requirements increase. Then above 50 employees the IRS considers you a Large Employer, etc. It would be reasonable to apply basic consumer protection laws to any service with more than, say, a million users. "Any subscription entered into online must b…

This is a great point; I forgot entirely about exemptions.

Do you happen to know of any existing regulation-with-exceptions that I can cite, to persuade others (and incidentally myself) that regulation isn't such a bad idea? Ideally something related to FAANG, but any software regulation with reasonable exemptions would be a fine example.

To be honest, I'm worried that politicians would muck things up during the legislative process, and that the right exemptions won't get applied. Or that we'll run into yet another law where you're required to pop up a banner saying "This site uses cookies, just like everyone else, lol." But if it's been done successfully, I'd like to know about it.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#232

Post by grishka »

monocasa wrote: post #115
Zelphyr wrote: post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

> Finally I said, "Look. We shouldn't be trying to make our customers spend more time in this product any more than LG does trying to get us to spend more time in our refrigerators." It fell on deaf ears. Considering how hard it is to find decent, non-smart appliances these days, it seems to have fell on deaf ears at LG as well.

At least you could buy a smart appliance but never give it an internet connection. It would most probably still perform its main function just fine.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#233

Post by lioeters »

dcposch wrote: post #220
sillysaurusx wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminalization of dark patterns? It’s not impossible to imagine — intentionally tricking a user is sometimes called fraud — but I’m not sure we’ve thought through the implications of criminalizing website design. The biggest companies are the ones least affected by regulation, because they can invest resources into complying. Small startups sometimes can’t. A teenager in their bedroom usually can’t. And that’s no sm…

The standard solution is to exempt small organizations. It's why, for example, you can start a company with minimal accounting. When you hire your first employee, your requirements increase. Then above 50 employees the IRS considers you a Large Employer, etc. It would be reasonable to apply basic consumer protection laws to any service with more than, say, a million users. "Any subscription entered into online must b…

> Lina Khan running the FCC

I think you mean the FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/lina-khan

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#235

Post by gfxgirl »

The distraction of notifications, or "sign up for our email news letter" distractions I'm certainly against. But, the fact of having my time wasted (getting a notification I don't care about) has highlighted other things that waste my time such as

Movies that start with 1-3 minutes of company logos. An animation of "A Scott Free Production", followed by an animated logo of "Bad Robot", followed by yet another animated logo of "20th Century Fox" and all that is then followed by card that says "Scott Free Production of a Bad Robot movie published by 20th Century Fox". I want to reach and and shake the people silly "QUIT WASTING MY TIME!"

The same with both movie trailers and game trailers. I go to see the game trailer and there's 30 seconds to 2 minutes of logos. For games, I want to click the video and see gameplay IMMEDIATELY. I don't want some 5 minute CG movie nor do I want to see the publisher or developer's names. Those are solely there to stroke their own ego. The user/player/viewer as absolutely no need for it. They aren't respecting my time.

Of course those things have been around forever but the fact that my devices and apps waste my time in so many ways as highlighted other ways my time is also wasted.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#236

Post by squiggleblaz »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #173
dredmorbius wrote: post #157

In the 8 years that have elapsed since this pitch was made at Google, one conclusion is absolutely crystal clear: the industry has as little self-regulatory control over its use of such dark patterns as the public has over avoiding them. Regulation, taxation, and where necessary, criminalisation, are obvious and necessary. I'll note that for once, the patterns are not entirely synonymous with massive tech monopolies,…

Criminalization of dark patterns? It’s not impossible to imagine — intentionally tricking a user is sometimes called fraud — but I’m not sure we’ve thought through the implications of criminalizing website design. The biggest companies are the ones least affected by regulation, because they can invest resources into complying. Small startups sometimes can’t. A teenager in their bedroom usually can’t. And that’s no sm…

> Criminalization of dark patterns?

Criminalisation is actually better than regulation. Regulation is about what you do. Criminalisation takes into account what you did and what you intended to do.

One year ago, you followed every website design of the time, and made the "Please respect my privacy" button look like a the text in some terms and conditions, but the "Please sell all my data in a way that will increase my costs and make you many many dollars" look like a get-rid-of-this-inconvenience button.

Since then, regulations came up that banned this behavior. You didn't hear about it and you got sued by the regulation agency. Bummer.

Since then, criminal law changed that banned this behavior. You didn't hear about it and there's plenty of evidence that you were just acting in good faith - including the fact that you never actually sold the data because you're too busy attracting paying customers. You're alerted to the issue and immediately in good faith ask what they recommend and implement that. Your behavior before, during and after the event all showed a complete lack of intent. So why would you be criminally prosecuted?

It's the business who have the resources to do A/B testing on barely known features who mysteriously have no data about this interface that every user comes into contact with at least once, who need to be worried about this. There would be good reason to suspect that they tried to cover up their misdeeds. Even in the absence of positive evidence, it would be evidence of bad faith if they are a business that makes more money of user data than entire countries make off everything they do and don't consider the laws around user data.

The bigger issue is that it would be a pretty major change of direction.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#237

Post by squiggleblaz »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #231
dcposch wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard solution is to exempt small organizations. It's why, for example, you can start a company with minimal accounting. When you hire your first employee, your requirements increase. Then above 50 employees the IRS considers you a Large Employer, etc. It would be reasonable to apply basic consumer protection laws to any service with more than, say, a million users. "Any subscription entered into online must b…

This is a great point; I forgot entirely about exemptions. Do you happen to know of any existing regulation-with-exceptions that I can cite, to persuade others (and incidentally myself) that regulation isn't such a bad idea? Ideally something related to FAANG, but any software regulation with reasonable exemptions would be a fine example. To be honest, I'm worried that politicians would muck things up during the legi…

> Or that we'll run into yet another law where you're required to pop up a banner saying "This site uses cookies, just like everyone else, lol."

Is there any such law? I always understood that to be a widespread misunderstanding. Just like the way every website pops up a dialog box asking you to approve tracking or click through some complex flow to disapprove. They aren't required to do that. But business people are trying to make regulation seem like a burden on users to discourage legislators from creating new regulations.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#238

Post by Cthulhu_ »

gfxgirl wrote: post #235

The distraction of notifications, or "sign up for our email news letter" distractions I'm certainly against. But, the fact of having my time wasted (getting a notification I don't care about) has highlighted other things that waste my time such as Movies that start with 1-3 minutes of company logos. An animation of "A Scott Free Production", followed by an animated logo of "Bad Robot", followed by yet another animate…

I think those things nowadays serve the role of easing you into the film, allow everyone to settle down, finish what they're doing, etc - a lot of films start with something important right away.

And it's better than it used to be, older films used to have a long reel of credits before the film started.

Anyway, services like Netflix should be able to add a skip button for those.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#239

Post by iseethroughbs »

savingsPossible wrote: post #153
AlbertCory wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Easy to be right"?? Good to know. But why isn't everyone doing it, then? Maybe you have a useful idea on regulating attention-sucking? Please share.

He/she probably meant "its easier to point a real problem than to find a real, stable solution"

That's what I meant.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#240

Post by tomaskafka »

Swizec wrote: post #81
aiisjustanif wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the many SF tech workers optimizing for profit.

I am an SF tech worker. Lots of companies here selling pickaxes. Twilio, for example, doesn’t need engagement. Last I heard they were swimming in money.

Selling pickaxes for companies building engagement human traps? :)

How far are you not afraid to look?

Post reply on HN