Hacker News Reader

Comment by ehnto | Hacker News Reader

Dark patterns aren't a line in the sand that's for sure. At what point does a newsletter pop-up become a dark pattern? There are some concrete examples, but it can also be pretty nuanced. I think newsletter pop-ups are always egregious, but a business owner can have a very hard time grasping why. They can think they're building stuff people like, and they can often act like they're simply herding sheep. Users are ephemeral zombies to some, and from that lens, it's totally fine to capture them with sneaky tactics.

View on HN

I wouldn't call over aggressive marketing a dark pattern. As with the newsletter pop-ups, they aren't shady or underhanded or misleading or coercive, they're just in your face. I often find them obnoxious and repulsive and they drive me away from a site, but they're in the light, out in the open, not pretending to be something they aren't.

I think there is a fairly bright line in the sand for defining a dark pattern, and the line is between hiding and being open, between being misleading and straightforward, between trying to force someone to do something and seducing them with plain intentions. The later behavior can still really suck, without being dark.

I disagree, simply. There's so many novel UX patterns in websites and apps, it's impossible that you've got a clear idea of what is or isn't a dark pattern in every circumstance.

Uber Eats used to have a "$0" option for tipping, but removed it, it's no longer clear if you're going to be giving a tip or not, but if you don't click anything you don't actually give a tip. Is that a dark pattern? I think so, because the UX makes it seem like you have to select something, and that no isn't an option. But it's not hard to argue in the negative, since doing nothing will not take money from you.

You seem to give a pretty good reason why it's a dark pattern, and a pretty flimsy one for why it's not. I think it's not as ambiguous as you say.

I didn't realize this was going to be such a controversial take. It's possible you think there's a clear definition because you haven't seen examples of what some industries think is ethical. I'm trying to pick relatable examples but clearly not doing a great job. Again, I tend not to think these things are ethical, but I'm not the ethics police, so the fact that one person thinks it's ethical and one person does not means it must be blurry.

I feel pretty strongly that tracking cookies are evil, but the entire ad-tech industry did not think that was a dark-pattern.

I feel pretty strongly that GDPR "accept all or leave site" dialogs are a dark pattern, but the EU is happy with that implementation.

I would also love to point out that "dark-pattern" is still a blossoming terminology, there's no definitive body of law or ethics that describes what is and isn't a dark pattern.

The "accept all or leave" has recently been ruled illegal because the law requires "free and informed consent". Refusing service without consent isn't a free choice to the user.

Similar for Google that went the "you can disable cookies in your browser" way, I doubt that will survive a lawsuit in the coming years.

Newsletter popup that asks for email address and if you click Cancel or X doesn't save it: annoying but not a dark pattern

Popup that asks for email address that doesn't have an 'x' (or the 'x' doesn't appear for a while) and the email address field secretly records what the user types and even though they clicked cancel their information was secretly shared: dark pattern

There are some clear cut examples no doubt, but you've hardly covered the thousands of possible UX interactions. It's not always so well defined, partly because obnoxious marketing tactics can already toe the line of ethics.

> At what point does a newsletter pop-up become a dark pattern?

At what point does it not? Pop-ups exist to steal attention. It's abuse. Why do these marketers believe they are entitled to anyone's attention? They are not.

> a business owner can have a very hard time grasping why

Of course. Businesses generally couldn't care less about how much they're abusing their workers or their consumers. The only thing they care about is their profit. Dark patterns are just value extraction mechanisms, it's their abusiveness that makes them dark.

> they can often act like they're simply herding sheep. Users are ephemeral zombies to some, and from that lens, it's totally fine to capture them with sneaky tactics

Yes. It's an inherently abusive and sociopathic view. They don't consider us human beings.

I am in agreeance by the way. I think perhaps my comment came across as trying to soften the seriousness of dark-patterns when really I was just trying to say that there are lots of different perspectives on different types of coercion. It's not that it's unclear when something is coercive, it's that it's unclear how much coercion and trickery is unethical, as it depends on who you ask.

> it's that it's unclear how much coercion and trickery is unethical

Any amount of coercion and trickery is unethical. This is absolutely clear to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com