91–100 of 234 posts
Interesting that this site itself may use one of the described dark patterns. The banner on the main page has options "Got it" and "Learn more". There is no indication as to whether the "Got it" button is taken as consent for tracking, nor is there a "Reject all non-essential tracking" option on the main banner. Whether or not this site is compliant depends on whether the "Got it" button is taken as affirmative conse…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a spectrum of gray in the effect and scale of the manipulation, but deciding to manipulate the user or not is a binary choice.
Is it? It's comforting to think so, but I'm not convinced there's a meaningful dichotomy that can be drawn. I add a "save this card" functionality to my store so users don't have to type it in every time they buy something: am I offering a neat convenience feature, or am I manipulating them by reducing the psychological barrier of a sale?
"making their lives easier" implies that the purchase is the default outcome that the user needs to improve their lives, when the purchase could simply not be made at all. As long as the intention is to make more money, and that the effort expended does not improve the nature of what is purchased in some way, I'd say it technically qualifies even if the consequences are the lightest of grays.
That said, your example is thoughtful, and you are probably right overall. We could look at the broader context of all these systems encouraging consumption, but that would be moving the goalposts on my part.
edit: just to clarify an edit took place while I was replying
Interesting that this site itself may use one of the described dark patterns. The banner on the main page has options "Got it" and "Learn more". There is no indication as to whether the "Got it" button is taken as consent for tracking, nor is there a "Reject all non-essential tracking" option on the main banner. Whether or not this site is compliant depends on whether the "Got it" button is taken as affirmative conse…
Is it really interesting, though. For example, we have seen this as a very common retort in HN comments every time an author is critical of advertising, tracking/analytics, etc. Someone points out the author's site itself uses the thing being critiqued.
Is that supposed to detract from the argument being made by the author. That does not make much sense.
It is a bit like another common retort we see in discussing tech company behaviour: "But everyone else is doing it." Does that make it OK. Or one we see when discussing regulatory action: "They should be focusing on X not Y." Don't look here, look over there.
I am highly skeptical of comments that try to leverage these tactics. The message is what it is. Whether or not it is valid does not depend on who is voicing it, where it appears, or what's going on somewhere else. This is pure misdirection.
This paper might be a worthwhile read. It makes little sense to pre-judge it before reading, simply because it appears on ACM's website, and ACM's website developers try to get users to enable cookies. What if the paper is re-posted on a site with no Javascript and that does not try to set cookies. Does the content of the paper then become "legitimate". Why or why not.
It is easy to retrieve this paper without using cookies, from another site. For example,
https://web.archive.org/web/20210305175101/https://dl.acm.or...
PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20200701025846if_/https://dl.acm...
Not trying to single out this one comment. It's fine. The paper is not really arguing for or against banners and other notice and consent mechanisms, just studying their use. I cannot even see the banner because I use a text-only browser.
The most interesting paragraph in the paper IMO is the last one. They ask why the client, e.g., through browser settings, cannot be in control of the legal consent mechanism. What if clients were to sed an additional HTTP header to indicate whether or not the user consent to cookies. For example, Allow-Cookies: no.
The online advertising companies have apparently fought against this, e.g., the DNT header. If you enable DNT in one popular browser deployed by an advertising company you get this ridiculous warning message. Why the heck is it a big deal if the user controls the headers sent and the server has to honour them. When you read RFCs about www development they always make it sound like clients and servers on are equal footing. The reality is quite different. These companies want to control how a user "consents".
These regulations seem worse than nothing. We already have browsers, we can block and filter cookies based on our individual preference and adjust depending on our tolerance for privacy vs functionality. How has this changed the data collection practices of Facebook or Google in any meaningful way? Not enough people are asking what effect the many new regulatory burdens will have for the internet. It entrenchs the ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think everyone who uses that term has an agenda. I'm sure most have good intentions, or just are naturally attracted to new buzzwords. It just so happens the term does play into the agenda of those who have one and who manipulate others psychologically in this way. The whole topic is a sensitive one. I'm sure a sizeable number here on HN derive some direct or indirect profit from such practices (running, bein…
I think if someone puts the pauses at different spots than you, the grammar changes substantially. Reading your replies I figured it out, but it reads like not everyone caught that so I thought it might help you sort out some of the reactions you’re getting.
These regulations seem worse than nothing. We already have browsers, we can block and filter cookies based on our individual preference and adjust depending on our tolerance for privacy vs functionality. How has this changed the data collection practices of Facebook or Google in any meaningful way? Not enough people are asking what effect the many new regulatory burdens will have for the internet. It entrenchs the ex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think everyone who uses that term has an agenda. I'm sure most have good intentions, or just are naturally attracted to new buzzwords. It just so happens the term does play into the agenda of those who have one and who manipulate others psychologically in this way. The whole topic is a sensitive one. I'm sure a sizeable number here on HN derive some direct or indirect profit from such practices (running, bein…
The term “dark pattern” refers to user interface design patterns. That’s where the “pattern” bit comes from. There was already a term for anti-pattern which referred to mistakes. I wanted a term that had a Machiavellian tone to it, so I chose “dark” (Star Wars, Harry Potter, why not?). I’m not quite sure why this term proved to be so popular. I think it is helpful to have a term that is a little vague though, as it c…
>I’m not quite sure why this term proved to be so popular.
Well, it does sound cool and memorable on its own...
Every time you open a site and it shows a popup for picking your cookies, just open uBlockOrigin from your browser toolbar, click the quick element picker (eye dropper icon), click the popup.
Done. Now you will never see the popup for that site (even if you do not save cookies, or clear your cookies), and you are technically guarantee to not accept any non-essential cookies ever (if they follow spec)