The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides • Hacker News Board

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#21

Post by deviation » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

flowerlad wrote: post #8

I called to cancel. I was offered $14/month promotion, and then after I agreed to the deal and gave them credit card they said I will be charged $14 every 4 weeks. I said agreed to $14/month, that's not the same as $14 every 4 weeks, because $14/month is $168 per year, but $14 every 4 weeks is $182.49 per year. They said they will charge $14 every 4 weeks, and I decided to cancel because of their scammy offer.

This happens with almost everything that I'm subscribed to. It's one dark pattern that I am ashamed to participate in... But the public never pushed back on it.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#22

Post by eli » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #17

For me, https://privacy.com has been a lifesaver in situations like this. Can't cancel a subscription? Just cancel the card. Voilà!

Don’t try that with a gym membership or similar. They will come after you.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#23

Post by adambard » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:05 AM UTC

I had the same experience cancelling my subscription. I was able to avoid the sales pitch the author received (I guess I was a little firmer), but I doubt I'll be subscribing again after I realized there was no unsubscribe button.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#24

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #16

eli wrote: post #9

A newspaper isn't a monolith and, by design, the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper. You're absolutely right to call out bad behavior of the subscription department, but the "liar, liar" heading is unfair.

> A newspaper isn't a monolith Neither is amazon.

[deleted]

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#25

Post by mapgrep » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

I have adopted a zen posture to this sort of hypocrisy which involves believing both these things:

1. It is good to call out hypocrisy like this article does where a publishing entity is engaged in behavior completely contrary to the behavior called for in their published words.

2. It is also good that the reporter’s journalism is sufficiently free (as in freedom) that they are able to write so independently of the behavior of the mother ship.

Like, the world would definitely be a worse place if reporters at Bloomberg declined to do some of the excellent reporting they’ve done on tech company tax dodges just because (hypothetically) Bloomberg was a tech company that did some corporate tax dodging. It’s good that they do it. It’s also fine that people note the cognitive dissonance.

It’s sort of like how I feel about Googlers protesting sexual harassment or the China search project. Personally I still think they are affiliated with a company that engages in a lot of bad practices but good on them for at least trying to change some thing however small. And at the same time I feel free to say “well ya they’re protesting this guy who was abusing his underlings but their company is abusing all of us” or whatever.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#26

Post by ipsum2 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:07 AM UTC

eli wrote: post #9

A newspaper isn't a monolith and, by design, the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper. You're absolutely right to call out bad behavior of the subscription department, but the "liar, liar" heading is unfair.

> the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper

And yet you will never see the editorial side write negative things about the business side of the newspaper.

People bring up this distinction that there is some barrier between the two, but its a very weak argument, since the incentives of both are the same (to increase the newspapers revenue)

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#27

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

If a company does this, I am NEVER subscribing again.

Whereas if a company makes cancelling/renewing super painless I'm going to come and go as a customer as it fits my needs. This results in more overall business for the company.

I am literally going through this right now: A company called "Ooma" makes dongles that provide voice-over-IP for landline phones (inc. a telephone number), for $10/month with "no contract." But our use-case isn't every month, it is once every few months, and they require call-to-cancel/hassle-to-cancel, so now we're reviewing alternatives that are more legitimately flexible.

They're literally going to lose my recurring business only because of this anti-consumer practice.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#28

Post by nireyal » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

mapgrep wrote: post #25

I have adopted a zen posture to this sort of hypocrisy which involves believing both these things: 1. It is good to call out hypocrisy like this article does where a publishing entity is engaged in behavior completely contrary to the behavior called for in their published words. 2. It is also good that the reporter’s journalism is sufficiently free (as in freedom) that they are able to write so independently of the b…

I agree. But also before hitting publish they should have done a quick check of their own UX. This would have shown a good faith effort as opposed to a hypocritical take-down. It would have also illustrated a richer perspective on why these types of dark patterns get built into products in the first place, as I write in the second half of the essay.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#29

Post by nireyal » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:10 AM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #27

If a company does this, I am NEVER subscribing again. Whereas if a company makes cancelling/renewing super painless I'm going to come and go as a customer as it fits my needs. This results in more overall business for the company. I am literally going through this right now: A company called "Ooma" makes dongles that provide voice-over-IP for landline phones (inc. a telephone number), for $10/month with "no contract.…

Yes! Good for you, bad for Ooma and other companies who use this dark pattern.

Re: The New York Times uses the dark patterns it derides

#30

Post by sebmellen » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:11 AM UTC

eli wrote: post #22

sebmellen wrote: post #17

For me, https://privacy.com has been a lifesaver in situations like this. Can't cancel a subscription? Just cancel the card. Voilà!

Don’t try that with a gym membership or similar. They will come after you.

Yeah, definitely an important disclaimer.

Generally speaking I try not to sign up for any service where the terms are deeply onerous or the industry has a bad reputation (like with gyms). For most SaaS and other online subscription models, I've found that cancelling a card is a pretty easy way to let the subscription lapse.