Earlier quoted context omitted.
This fall onwards it'll be: Settings > Privacy > Advertising.
Source?
The slippery slope
111–120 of 137 posts
Re: The slippery slope
#112I'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…
Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after loving the article). He makes the argument that sure, many of these tactics might increase your conversion rates or make you some money, at least in the short run. But it also causes you to come off as seedy, to come off as a back alley discount store instead…
>Acting shady hurts your brand.
The Ladders has a long history of actually being shady, viz.
"Liars at the Ladders" http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/newsletter/oe20090120.htm
Re: The slippery slope
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks seem to be doing ok.
Generally, it's illegal not to use banks beyond a certain point. That is, transporting large amounts of cash is strong evidence of criminal behaviour, is subject to seizure, etc.
It is illegal to transport more than a certain amount of money over the (US) border unless you declare it.
Re: The slippery slope
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after loving the article). He makes the argument that sure, many of these tactics might increase your conversion rates or make you some money, at least in the short run. But it also causes you to come off as seedy, to come off as a back alley discount store instead…
> 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
What evidence do you have for that? Even assuming perfect knowledge, humans are what run these companies, and we all know how irrational those can be. Sure, sure, "the market" will kill them off, sooner or later (maybe; that's also assuming perfect knowledge of consumers, and we know how true that is), but until then, this shadiness should be called out and shunned whenever possible.
Re: The slippery slope
#115I'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 small form to be filled out? 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…
Easy solution: send a certified letter with your cancellation notice; any charges after that can be legally reported as CC fraud. Enough people do that, and maybe they won't be pulling that bullshit anymore.
Re: The slippery slope
#116I'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…
Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil.
I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind."
Whenever two entities transact, there are four basic outcomes. The best outcome is when both parties benefit. That's what we should aim for in general. Another good outcome is when one party willingly takes a hit to benefit the other party, which we could call charity. Then there are evil outcomes where one party harms another party for their own benefit, and finally stupid outcomes where both parties come out worse off.
Trying to convince me not to cancel by wasting my time is clearly in the "evil" category. There's no attempt at mutual benefit, they're just trying to increase my cost in order to increase their benefit. An honest company tries to increase my benefit to also increase their benefit.
Re: The slippery slope
#117I'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…
Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil. I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hop…
> I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind.
See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting. That was so evil I think they last some law cases over it.
It's disappointing that so much effort goes into evil tweaks. But it's worse that customers reward that evil behaviour. Candy Crush is huge at the moment. I'd pay £5 for something like Candy Crush without the evil; heck, I'd buy it for all my family too to avoid the constant FB spam from it.
Re: The slippery slope
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil. I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hop…
> I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind. See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting.…
The freemium app craze drives me nuts. Used to be, the way to get more revenue from your game was to make it better. Now game creators are getting more revenue from their games by making them worse. That's a great example of win-win versus win-lose transactions.
Note that I have nothing against game creators charging for their products, it's just that the freemium model is pretty much inherently built such that creators make their money by making the game less fun to play.
Re: The slippery slope
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What's so evil about requiring a small form to be filled out? 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…
Easy solution: send a certified letter with your cancellation notice; any charges after that can be legally reported as CC fraud. Enough people do that, and maybe they won't be pulling that bullshit anymore.
If you can sign up on the web, you should be able to cancel on the web.
Factoring in the cost of my time, sending a certified letter costs me $200.
Re: The slippery slope
#120I'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…
Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil. I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hop…
I addressed this pretty explicitly in my post.
I agree with everything you're saying (intentionally frustrating users is bad), but I don't agree that a simple, straightforward form that can be filled out in under 10 seconds is an attempt to frustrate anyone. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that a significant number of people, upon seeing this form, decided not to cancel because filling it out was too much a waste of time. It's just not a plausible argument.
Another commenter mentioned going through hell attempting to cancel a gym membership. I've had the same thing happen to me: took multiple phone calls over the span of a few hours to cancel my Bally's membership. That was a deliberate attempt to frustrate. This form is several orders of magnitude better.