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

Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

regulations.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 542 posts

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#461

Post by max_ »

josephcsible wrote: post #350
max_ wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gmail for instance rolled out a feature for stuff just like this [0]. Firefox also has really great features like containers that keep your web activity isolated from other web applications. [1]. I wish there was more innovation in this space though. [0]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.leavemealone.app/how-does-... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1201060#answer-1...

You're mixing up two completely different meanings of "unsubscribe". Gmail's unsubscribe feature is to stop you from getting emails from a mailing list. It's powerless against recurring payments.

OP didn't specify.

As for payments, your card provider should be able to show you what services are deducting money from your account.

And it should also give you a way to "pause" or revoke payment subscriptions.

It is not "powerless" as NYT doesn't control your bank account.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#462

Post by axiosgunnar »

judge2020 wrote: post #394
axiosgunnar wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inflating the number intentionally would definitely be a dark pattern. Inflating the number intentionally would be criminal fraud, plain and simple. A dark pattern is making the „Delete account“ button smaller and grey while making the „No, take me back“ button huge and green. Literally lying with the intent of getting money from somebody is fraud and has nothing to do with dark pattern. Btw not attacking you perso…

> Inflating the number intentionally would be criminal fraud, plain and simple. With the amount of Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) out there, I doubt any case has proven this to be something you can bring charges against a company for.

Sorry but just because a crime is committed a lot, does not make it less of a crime.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#463

Post by yoz-y »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #442
drexlspivey wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar one is asking you to rate the app via the native modal (which does nothing) and if you rate with 5 stars they redirect you to the app store to vote there (where it counts). If you rate them with 1-3 stars they prompt you to leave feedback instead.

To a certain extent I can't blame apps for doing this. It would be much better for Android and iOS to have a better experience for leaving feedback or giving reviews.

Dunno about android but on iOS it really is quite trivial if you use the native dialog.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#464

Post by technofiend »

ryandrake wrote: post #305
bmuon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highly debatable. In fact, trying to classify it as a dark pattern may derail the very valid discussion that the FTC is trying to have. There are significantly worse patterns out there. See [1]. What the push notification pattern is, is annoying. And it is specially annoying because of a prevalence of confirmation dialogs all over the Web with GDPR/CCPA, paid subscriptions, etc. But does it cause harm or monetary los…

The pattern tries to avoid an outcome desired by the user: permanently revoking consent for some permission. Only asking when you are confident the answer is Yes goes against the intent of the platform functionality, and I’d argue that’s a major dark pattern. Similar to how apps used to ask “how do you like app?” And then only prompt to review the app if you responded favorably. Goes entirely against the app store’s…

Like eBay asking over and over for me to trust the site for payment transactions. No, no. I have a separate paypal account with 2fa enabled rather than giving you my credit card for a reason. Asking 1,000 times will never change my answer, but eBay remains ever hopeful.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#465

Post by emayljames »

josefx wrote: post #201
lmkg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way GDPR works, I think the companies using TrustArc are more likely to be held liable than TrustArc itself. Unless TrustArc makes the unforced error of getting itself classified as a Data Controller.

> Unless TrustArc makes the unforced error of getting itself classified as a Data Controller. Knowing how some scams and tax evasion schemes work I wouldn't be surprised if they could just set up a separate company that ends up with all the liability without any of the assets and just have that declare bankruptcy the moment the first fines hit. Rinse/Repeat as often as necessary.

I'd say they could if wasn't the EU parliament, but that would be a very bad move as the EU parliament would hit them harder if they tried that.

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#466

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Bellamy wrote: post #451
bogwog wrote: post #152

A common one is fake consent popups for system notifications. Websites need to ask for consent before sending system notifications via the Notifications API. If a user declines, that website is blocked from asking again (for obvious reasons) But many websites cheat this by showing a fake consent popup designed to mimic what the browser would show. If a user clicks "Decline" on the fake popup, the website won't show t…

If a site does something like this, a) You know that site is malicious. b) Choose another site. c) As users get more sophisticated these kind of tricks won't work.

Have you seen any data on whether or not user sophistication does indeed outpace dishonest tactics?

In my humble experience, the opposite is true, and the gap ever widens

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#467

Post by emayljames »

steve-benjamins wrote: post #296

Web.com charges 13 months in a year. They bill months in 4 week intervals— so a month = 28 days which = 13 months per year. This is all in their fine print. Screenshot: https://twitter.com/stevebenjamins/status/138531992456700313...

"We use a calendar.....that nobody else uses": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#468

Post by emayljames »

bashinator wrote: post #351
jdgoesmarching wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention how awful their AMP pages (redundant, blame grammar) are already. Searching for topics on Reddit is a nightmare, you’re stuck with their awful native search, their awful mobile app, or the awful mobile site.

And yet through the miracle of scrolling and screen zooming I’m somehow able to use old.reddit.com just fine even on my relatively small iPhone X

i.reddit.com FTW!

Re: Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

#470

Post by Bellamy »

rapnie wrote: post #273
iankp wrote: post #15

TrustArc is a company used by major brands that utilizes dark patterns to FAKE opt-out time for GDRP compliance. Major companies employ lies. It will hold your browser captive for 2 minutes in hopes that you cancel or accept all. If you don't, it shows "We are processing the requested change to your cookie preferences. This may take up to a few minutes to process.". Not even incompetence could make this an honest pro…

May have witnessed this or similar on Oracle website, when I was still using Java. Always thought "what the hell are you processing?".

Oracle and it's products have been a big NONO for me and my customers for a long time.
Post reply on HN