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

38 People are looking at this post right now

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 196 posts

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#91

Post by tmh88j »

buboard wrote: post #85
jchw wrote: post #29

A dark pattern implies something that is intentionally misleading. This is just lying. This is not a dark pattern because it’s Worse.

I mean, you can't be sure they're lying. Odds are nonzero that 38 ppl were looking at that flight

>I mean, you can't be sure they're lying. Odds are nonzero that 38 ppl were looking at that flight

I suggest you click on the link, they absolutely are lying. They're using JS to generate a random number between 28 and 45. If there happens to be 38 people looking at that flight it's entirely coincidental.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#92

Post by runarberg »

buboard wrote: post #85
jchw wrote: post #29

A dark pattern implies something that is intentionally misleading. This is just lying. This is not a dark pattern because it’s Worse.

I mean, you can't be sure they're lying. Odds are nonzero that 38 ppl were looking at that flight

It is lying. They claim something that they have no evidence for. Whether the number truly is 38 at that moment is irrelevant in this case. Because if the number was 0, 42, or 1437 they still would have made the claim that 38 were looking at that flight.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#93

Post by jchw »

buboard wrote: post #85
jchw wrote: post #29

A dark pattern implies something that is intentionally misleading. This is just lying. This is not a dark pattern because it’s Worse.

I mean, you can't be sure they're lying. Odds are nonzero that 38 ppl were looking at that flight

Sure, randomly picking a number is bound to land on the right answer eventually, but the website is still lying because it is telling you 38 even though it doesn’t actually know that. It is assuring you something that it provably doesn’t know. That’s a lie, correct or incorrect.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#94

Post by jessriedel »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #86
zzo38computer wrote: post #6

Yes, I think it is false advertising, so should be illegal.

It’s not false advertising. That would involve misrepresenting the product, which this does not. It’s unethical, but not illegal.

Are you sure? The value of a thing is often estimated by the interest others have in it. Regardless, it can be fraud.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#95

Post by runarberg »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #86
zzo38computer wrote: post #6

Yes, I think it is false advertising, so should be illegal.

It’s not false advertising. That would involve misrepresenting the product, which this does not. It’s unethical, but not illegal.

I’m sure there are laws against making false claims to sell your products.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#96

Post by ben509 »

matz1 wrote: post #22
poisonborz wrote: post #10

So some manager came up with this, tasked a PO, who tasked a team, and a frontend developer implemented it - and in this chain, in the end, everyone complied. I know it's not like murder, but especially in a field where it's so easy to hop into another job/project, one should have greater integrity.

Can't assume they don't have integrity. They might just have different moral values. I would gladly implement this any day. Its not illegal.

> They might just have different moral values.

This is why "values" is a terrible word to use to describe morals.

Values are subjective things like modesty or frugality. Those are values, because how you dress or spend your money generally have consequences only to yourself.

Something becomes immoral when it deprives another person of their inalienable rights; it causes them harm. Others' rights aren't subject to negotiation, that's what "inalienable" means.

That one can often get away with bullying or lying might make it seem like it's just a personal choice. That is, until people get fed up with it and hold that person to account for their actions.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#97

Post by squarefoot »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #86
zzo38computer wrote: post #6

Yes, I think it is false advertising, so should be illegal.

It’s not false advertising. That would involve misrepresenting the product, which this does not. It’s unethical, but not illegal.

Not false advertising but surely it can produce damage by inducing hurry in the customer who then won't have enough time to make the right choice or look for alternatives.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#98

Post by bigwavedave »

ben509 wrote: post #90
nothrabannosir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that plain illegal, full stop? If that’s not the textbook definition of false advertising then I don’t know what is.

If the Lanham act applies, possibly[1]. This isn't typical false advertising, though, as it's not claiming their service does a thing it doesn't nor is it defaming a competitor, it's lying about interest in the service. Looking at the criteria: > (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; I think a fake number of people looking i…

I think you misunderstand- the parent comment you replied to is referring to ads on Google using a much, much lower price that isn't actually offered by the hotel; it's not referring to whether or not the number of people looking at the ad is misleading/false.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#99

Post by djsumdog »

Insanity wrote: post #28
boulos wrote: post #16

The Twitter thread pointed to a BBC article [1] that certainly suggests that the UK’s regulators don’t think this is okay. I’ve found that Booking.com legitimately treats independent rooms as “only one left” (e.g., the B&B has named rooms, so there’s always just one of a kind for each) but I suspect any investigation into most of these sites leads to “this is full of misleading dark patterns”. [1] https://www.bbc.com…

Booking.com is horrible to use in my opinion. It is handy but you need to ignore the dark patterns on every. Single. Page. Honestly it makes me want to use the website less, and does not urge me to buy.

Last time I had a phone screening with the, I learned their entire codebase was in Perl, with no plans on migration to anything else. There were almost no unit tests anywhere. Most developers could push directly to production.

Everything the girl on the phone said was horrifying and I decided not to continue. Their recruiter kept trying to call me over Skype though, and they offer more than most other companies of that size in the EU, so I suspect they're pretty desperate.

This was back in 2015 so maybe it's changed, but it sounds like a terrible place as far as technology and tech debt goes.

Re: 38 People are looking at this post right now

#100

Post by ceejayoz »

jayflux wrote: post #45
ggm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not Hanlon's razor: they had a moment where they commit an act of fraud by intent, not by incompetent behaviour.

The point is, rather than setting out to maliciously deceive people it could have just been laziness. There’s multiple angles to what could have happened.

"I'm going to commit fraud out of laziness" is plenty malicious.
Post reply on HN