Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bakary | Hacker News Reader

Who came up with the term dark patterns? It's psychological manipulation and fraud, pure and simple

Another alternative proposed to IETF inclusive terminology draft is 'deception pattern'.

I can't say I completely agree with the philosophical outlook behind this list, but this specific term you cite seems like a clear improvement

> Sanity check → Quick check, confidence check, coherence check

> Crazy → Unexpected, surprising, puzzling

> Dummy value → Placeholder value, sample value

They're getting more and more ridiculous with this Newspeak nonsense.

> Who came up with the term dark patterns?

Harry Brignull

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

Your comment lacks any explanation at all. Why is the term 'dark patterns' 'psychological manipulation and fraud'?

That is not what the sentence says at all. It simply says that "dark pattern" is a euphemism/harmless wording for what is done.

Every time I see the term 'dark pattern', it's always a case of one or the other, with the delineation into fraud varying depending on the relevant laws. In this case, they mention how websites skirt the minimum GDPR requirements and trick the users to do what they want, so it looks to be both.

The term is in the best case superfluous, in the worst case a harmful euphemism.

Your top level post reads as if people who use 'dark patterns' as a term have an agenda, and that agenda is fraud and psychological manipulation.

I read it as primarily saying that the thing which 'dark patterns' refers to is more plainly called "fraud and psychological manipulation, not so much that merely using 'dark patterns' as a euphemism is itself "fraud...etc." Suspicious perhaps, but as an indirect second-order thing.

It can be seen as ambiguous, but a lot of language relies on assumptions about what a reasonable person would be thinking. Which causes trouble if you're trying to express a contrary or startling opinion.

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, being employed in or having stock in a company that does this sort of thing, especially FAANGs) while also having some dissonant misgivings about how the internet and technology is evolving. Terms like 'dark patterns' only serve to deepen this confusion and create additional moral distance between such tech workers and the consequences of their work, even if they are not necessarily intended to be nefarious: therefore, we ought to discourage it whenever possible.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, none of what I say here will actually have an effect on any of this, but it's fun to discuss these topics all the same.

In any case, I don't see how any of this can be inferred from that single original sentence, but I'll take your word for it.

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 can be a lot of work to pin down whether something is truly deceptive with an outcome of harm - or just an annoying attempt to nudge.

Thanks for letting me know. Looking through the thread again after my initial off-the-cuff reaction, I'm starting to think that I may be reading too much into the term due to my own biases and assigning interpretations to people that they might not have. There's certainly more to say on this topic.

>I’m not quite sure why this term proved to be so popular.

Well, it does sound cool and memorable on its own...

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.

As a non-native speaker, I appreciate the feedback. I have yet to master the intricacies of this language :)

I'm currently in a group that is fractious, and it's messing with my instincts to add social commentary when I see people arguing past each other.

I can't decide yet if this is a good or a bad thing but thank you for the appreciation.

> fraud

then take them to court and make a killing.

Precisely why the new term was devised: dark patterns are not, in general, technically fraud.

They are playing completely within the rules but taking advantage of human psychology to tilt the outcome in the direction the website owner wants (and, it is assumed, against what the average user wants).

Well, an interpretation of the rules that their lawyers said was at least justifiable enough to make a legal argument out of. It's hard to write rules when the readers are incentivized strongly to use any ambiguity as a weak spot to attack and use as a workaround rather than following intent.

Following intent isn't a good legal framework either, of course, better to make the people with legal training work hard to write them correctly once rather than making them complicated to interpret.

I sincerely doubt that much financial reward will come for any random individual doing this to any randomly selected website in that sample that does not meet the GDPR requirements.

On one hand, you've technically got the right idea that I ought to put some skin in the game. On the other, it's a reasoning meant to shut down criticism on the same level as the infamous "yet you participate in society, curious!" comic

> I sincerely doubt that much financial reward will come for any random individual doing this to any randomly selected website in that sample that does not meet the GDPR requirements.

Then whats the point of GDPR if its not worth taking them to court. Is the idea that only govt can bring them to justice?

Is the idea that only govt can bring them to justice?

Mostly, yes. The main enforcement authority is the government regulator in each member state (and the UK, which retains the system post-Brexit).

This topic is above my paygrade since I lack the relevant legal knowledge. But some things I've noted so far:

- GDPR shone a light on these practices that is visible to the casual user. This highlights some examples long term counter-productive thinking: people blaming GDPR for showing those practices instead of the practices themselves. A symptom of the messed up ways in which all this has been developed over the years

- Even single governments alone aren't enough in some cases (see France's measly series of fines against Google that probably evoked laughter in the boardroom)

- As a user, the prospect of being able to download my data from FAANGs seemed so miraculous and unrealistic at first that it made me realize I complacent I had gotten to unequal practices and to these websites and companies just doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. That specific point alone is worth the entirety of GDPR to me

- Baby steps. GDPR is already a step in the right direction, they are still figuring these things out (especially enforcement) whereas the private sector has decades of experience in anti-user practices, honed by some of the finest minds. The next step is to get a better share of the deal for Europeans as a whole.

Would you consider the fact that bread and fruit and veg are always at the start of a supermarket journey a dark pattern?

Supermarkets have gotten customers to spend more than they intended with all their patterns as well -- just like social media sites get customers to spend more time online. It's just what they optimise for. The concept is much older than the coined word.

>Would you consider the fact that bread and fruit and veg are always at the start of a supermarket journey a dark pattern?

No, because the term seems superfluous or euphemistical to me. But yes in the sense that it is psychological manipulation.

Is an entity intentionally deceiving or manipulating the customer/user/etc. using their understanding of psychology? Psychological manipulation

>The concept is much older than the coined word

Indeed, we already have a name for it as I've been trying to say!

Most of a supermarket's layout is determined by hard requirements like refrigeration, stocking heavy items and handling payments.

If you're wondering why, for instance, the milk is in the back, it's because it needs to stay cool and it's heavy.

Most of a supermarket's layout is determined by hard requirements like refrigeration, stocking heavy items and handling payments.

That hasn't been generally true for a long time. The big chains spend a fortune deciding how their stores should be presented and optimising the layout of different products, and there is a lot of sophisticated analysis going on behind the scenes. There are certainly recurring themes in the results, but for example there are several major stores near me that have totally different layouts in many respects including all of the ones you mentioned, and it would be surprising if any of those differences was an accident. The stores don't run all those loyalty card schemes, nor rearrange their products from time to time, just for fun!

The whole concept of the placement of the milk being suspicious and needing an explanation never made sense to me. Why would they or should they optimize for people who go to the supermarket just to buy milk? It makes perfect sense to me from the point of view of usually buying more than one thing per trip.

If in a "normal" grocery store trip you go through most of the store then of course you want to get refrigerated and frozen foods last, just before you go to the checkout. So they don't warm up too much.

By the way, frozen stuff is not all on the perimeter in my experience of US supermarkets. It's funny how something can be so mundane and everyday you never really look at it.

but they aren't? Fruit and veggies are first for our (Germany) two largest chains, bread isn't second for either. Aldi has neither at the beginning.

Highly depends on the Aldi. Mine does indeed start with bread but has Veg at the end of the first aisle across the refridgerated goods. I would guess that the position of the bread depends on the infrastructure, specifically where the baking station can be built.

Because there are shades of gray

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?

>Is it? It's comforting to think so, but I'm not convinced there's a meaningful dichotomy that can be drawn. I rework my store's checkout workflow, making it simpler so users only have to click a couple buttons to buy a product: am I making their lives easier, 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

So "dark pattern" is a dark pattern?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com