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

Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

fil.forbrukerradet.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#151

Post by reaperducer »

heavenlyhash wrote: post #119

Those flowcharts and color coding are amazing. Everyone: even if you skim the rest of the article (mind, it's ALL worth reading), scroll to the last few pages and LOOK at those. They're color-coded by ease of flow (and yes, a definition of that was selected and clearly explained). I'm excited by this because I feel that often when we talk about Dark Patterns, conversations often devolve into a "both-sides"-ism patter…

You're right -- the flowcharts are above par.

But the very first chart in the PDF is troublesome because of negative language.

For example, "No privacy intrusive default settings in popups."

Does the X on Facebook mean "There are no privacy intrusive default settings in popups" or "There are privacy intrusive default settings in popups."

Double negatives are difficult; especially for non-native English speakers.

It's like when you see someone on HN write "it's not non-trivial." Just say if it's easy or hard. Don't bury yourself in confusing jargon.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#152

Post by whatyoucantsay »

lancewiggs wrote: post #47
scrollaway wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That flow was really scummy. I remember going through it. The entry point was an email claiming you have to "read and accept the updated policies in order to continue using the site". And the first thing you're presented with was that two-choice "Manage data settings" / "Accept and continue", implying for the user who is less than extremely careful that if you don't "Accept and continue", you won't be able to use the…

By staying at Facebook your friends are explicitly supporting these and other scummy actions. They have decided to hold their noses and prioritise themselves over humanity. Think less of them.

> By staying at Facebook your friends are explicitly supporting these and other scummy actions. They have decided to hold their noses and prioritise themselves over humanity.

> Think less of them.

Given their explicit support of scummy actions and not humanity, do you feel Facebook employees should be punched, in the defence of humanity?

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#153

Post by phicoh »

dalbasal wrote: post #150
phicoh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent. This means that if European privacy regulators agree that this approach does not in fact means that users consented then Facebook/Google/Microsoft may be violating the GDPR. I think this is where, at least in theory, the GDPR is a major step forward: it has clear instructions on how information should be presented to users. Now we have to see if that theory actu…

The GDPR is quite explicit on what consists of consent I've had this argument a couple of times and I think it comes down to the semantics, though legal and legislative semantics are a little richer than most. What I mean is that gdpr makes its intentions quite clear, but that's not how the legal system parses laws. What the consequences of gdpr are, in terms of practice is (1) all website visitors must sign a contra…

Contracts work fine if they are common. Suppose you are in a bar buying one drink at a time. Each time you buy a drink you enter a new contract. Is that a problem? No.

The 'click here to agree and continue to the article' is a problem in the context of the GDPR because consent has to be given freely and cannot be a requirement to obtain a service.

That's a big departure from the cookie law, where this kind of forced consent is allowed.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#154

Post by vorpalhex »

zucan wrote: post #34
janlaureys wrote: post #14

Especially on mobile some of these cookie management screens I've seen lately are HORRIBLE. If you're gonna make me click on every single partner to opt out of their tracking, I'm just not gonna use your site.

I can't find a section of GDPR requiring these individual toggles for each "partner". From my understanding a website owner could just as well list all partners and give the user the option to consent to processing by all partners (or none) - the agreement is between the website user and the website owner ("controller"), the controller and their partners have a completely separate agreement. As far as pre-ticked boxe…

> I can't find a section of GDPR requiring these individual toggles for each "partner"

This isn't happening because websites are falling over themselves to comply with GDPR. This is the case because websites explicitly want to make opting out as difficult as possible. Somehow a large portion of web content creators have gone astray and confused locking users in a metaphorical room against their will with "consent".

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#155

Post by stevesimmons »

Bloomberg is also surprisingly bad. I naively expected them to have more integrity.

Their consent page (linked from The Recycling Game story a few slots above this on HN right now) has a huge "Accept and Continue" button and a much smaller "More Information" link. The really bad thing IMO is each section has a switch with options Out and In, with a black/white slider on a black background. Not only is it unclear what Out and In mean here, it's unclear which of black or white means selected.

That's bad enough I'm actually tempted to write to their GC.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#156

Post by incidentnormal »

scrollaway wrote: post #146
mistermann wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I know several who are staying because they feel that their position is where they can produce the most good for the world Do you think Facebook is a net positive for the world? Borderline, or overwhelmingly? To be clear, I'm not asking whether some people get net benefit out of it, I'm talking about the net overall effect on society and the individuals within it. Personally, I believe it is causing tremendous…

I believe Facebook, overall, is a net negative. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own positives. Sticking to the "net positive / net negative" terms, imagine Facebook contributes a number of positive / negative points to the world. Now the sum can be a net negative, but that doesn't mean some line items aren't positives. Where do you work? Is your company flawless? Are you a contributor to every single one of…

That is what net means, there will be positives and negatives which contribute to the net. For the record I agree with you, I think Facebook is overall negative but not by much, there are very strong positives.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#157

Post by repolfx »

rickycook wrote: post #57
adventured wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the most blatant malcompliance with GDPR IMO, when will data protection authorities start fining FB? The GDPR fans on HN have said over and over again that GDPR wouldn't result in instant fines, that companies would be given a warning and an opportunity to make changes. We'll soon find out if that's true or not.

facebook made their changes, and failed. they’ve played their hand, now it’s time for the law to tell them what utter bull it is. do you think facebook is going to change anything from now? the point of “no instant fines” is to give companies a chance to change and develop their GDPR systems. if those systems are both complete, and in violation, why shouldn’t they be fined?

The GDPR doesn't specify anything precisely. Facebook made changes, they clearly do comply with the GDPR because the GDPR gives much leeway in how it's interpreted.

But there's a deeper reason why the EU fining Facebook would be a deep demonstration of malaise, incompetence and greed. From the report:

Research has shown that most users will never look at, let alone change, the default settings.

That's right, and you know why? Because users don't care and never did. This entire privacy crusade is made up out of whole cloth, by the EU, to obtain power and money. These foolish governments constantly demand more and more controls, consent agreements and so on and the users constantly don't use those new controls and always consent because they were perfectly fine to begin with.

There are no dark patterns. There are no evil conspiracies. There are only users, who enjoy broadcasting every detail of their lives to their friends and sometimes the world.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#158

Post by repolfx »

matt4077 wrote: post #72
marichards wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press gets hold of it and realises that they're littered with Facebook and Google integrations, their consent policy is little better and then they decide that they're going to publish this? The press has been suckered into this whole mess in its sacrifice to keep revenue from advertising

„The media‘s” recent attention to digital privacy issues seems to disprove your conspiracy theories, and to show that journalists operate separate from their publications’ business departments.

The media likes online privacy stories because they want Facebook and Google to pay them money, so never miss a chance to trash these companies and attack their reputation.

The last thing the media wants is to be held to the same rules and standards of the tech firms though. They neededn't worry however. The law will not be applied consistently.

Re: Norwegian Consumer Council report on how tech companies use dark patterns [pdf]

#159

Post by repolfx »

tyfon wrote: post #67
netsharc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't they prefer to be not in the EU, because they can keep their oil to themselves? (AFAIK if they're in the EU then EU oil companies can ask to drill in their territory: https://www.politico.eu/article/of-crustaceans-and-oil-the-c... ). So maybe it's better to have no deciding voice but be able to keep all the money.

Oil companies can still get licenses and drill in Norway, they just have to pay taxes (80%) and that won't change. The people decided in two referendums that they do not want to be in the EU, but the politicians did not accept it and created the EAA/EØS which basically puts us in EU in all but name with very limited power to influence what happens there. It was not democratically done. I am pro EU, but it was the wro…

Yep, this is how it always goes.
Post reply on HN