101–110 of 137 posts
To disable Ad Tracking under IOS, go to Settings > General > About > Advertising > Limit Ad Tracking to On This is a worthwhile read (with excellent examples) on the ubiquitous "Click here to not receive third-party messages" pattern.
Let's not forget about disabling "Interest-based ads," for which there is no path to get to... other than going to a link in Safari. The link is oo.apple.com This KB article explains the process. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4228 Interestingly, this launches some sort of stealth app, not a hidden page in the "Settings" app. Also, there is another setting for including your location with iAd calls. That one is Settin…
I'm going to nitpick a bit here, mostly because it's entertaining to play devil's advocate on a topic that's always met with such one-sided responses on HN (in this case: dark patterns). My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Sure, outright trickery and lies are almost unarguably immoral. And the author definitely identifies many examples of that. B…
I'm reminded of Star Wars, light side versus dark side. Neither side is stronger, and which side is "better" really depends on your POV. We do know that the dark side is "easier". Companies similarly can choose to go light side or dark side and end up with the same bottom line, but light side takes more up-front effort.
Now, let me apply the same question: if the dark side is easier and is as likely to get you results, why isn't it a perfectly valid choice?
I thought in the EU you're legally required to do opt-in. You're not permitted to do opt-out. How can the UK Post Office do opt-out? Is this some UK exemption from the EU law? Or is it the typical government exemption from its own law (like e.g. how politicians exempted themselves from the US CAN-SPAM law)?
Just so confusing and misleading that a lot of people will opt-in by mistake.
The directive does not say that you must find a literal opt-in button on a web site.
It's funny. I'm on the phone trying to reach a student loan representative right now. I keep pressing 1 for English, 4 for a student loan representative, 1 again for the type of loan, then I'm back to pressing 4 for a loan representative. It's an infinite loop! I try hitting 0 for an operator but then I'm prompted to give a 4 digit extension for the party I want to reach.
Or, if you want a more rational reasoning: nowadays higher education is essential to gain access to knowledge worker jobs which are becoming the foundation of the post-industrial economy. Nations should want the best quality of students in those jobs, not just those who can afford the entry ticket. Therefore it makes sense from an economic perspective to amortize the cost of entry (higher education) across the entire taxpayer base and leave education as a purely merit-driven system where the best students get the most economically significant jobs.
I'm going to nitpick a bit here, mostly because it's entertaining to play devil's advocate on a topic that's always met with such one-sided responses on HN (in this case: dark patterns). My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Sure, outright trickery and lies are almost unarguably immoral. And the author definitely identifies many examples of that. B…
What's so evil about requiring a 20 minute form to be filled out in order to cancel?
>The questions are directly relevant to the act of canceling
For The Ladders, and not for the user. The user is done with questions and just wants to cancel. The website is demanding that the consumer do free labor for it in return for the privilege of canceling. It's not tricking you, it's simply extorting you. Combined with...
>[...]say, The Ladder's decision to auto-renew monthly subscriptions while hiding that fact at the bottom of the page in small gray font[...]
...it's a direct statement that if you don't participate in our consumer research program, we will withdraw $25 from your account every month until you do. I don't even think that's legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Acting shady hurts your brand. These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx . Sometimes you do things you know have a negative, because you believe that the positives outweigh it. Not that I agree with these dark patterns, but I understand why companies choose to implement them.
These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx. Actually - they often are silly. It might be $x right now , but it turns into $10x later on as the consequences of that initial damage roll on and affect future interactions, recommendations, etc. It's very easy to quantify the short-term gains being snea…
I'm going to nitpick a bit here, mostly because it's entertaining to play devil's advocate on a topic that's always met with such one-sided responses on HN (in this case: dark patterns). My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Sure, outright trickery and lies are almost unarguably immoral. And the author definitely identifies many examples of that. B…
To disable Ad Tracking under IOS, go to Settings > General > About > Advertising > Limit Ad Tracking to On This is a worthwhile read (with excellent examples) on the ubiquitous "Click here to not receive third-party messages" pattern.
Let's not forget about disabling "Interest-based ads," for which there is no path to get to... other than going to a link in Safari. The link is oo.apple.com This KB article explains the process. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4228 Interestingly, this launches some sort of stealth app, not a hidden page in the "Settings" app. Also, there is another setting for including your location with iAd calls. That one is Settin…
If you go directly in Safari, it'll prompt to open in "iAdOptOut". I wonder how it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx. Actually - they often are silly. It might be $x right now , but it turns into $10x later on as the consequences of that initial damage roll on and affect future interactions, recommendations, etc. It's very easy to quantify the short-term gains being snea…
By doing this they survived first and took place of some other honest companies. Still very large benefits.