It's a little disappointing that Techcrunch doesn't mention any of the controversy / dark pattern-ness of their subscription model, except in passing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391
It has >1000 upvotes and >450 comments. It was on the front page about 11am and then by noon had disappeared (I stopped looking after about 10 pages).
Honestly, I'd still like an answer as to why. I know pages without links degrade quicker but this isn't what happened here. Nothing drops from top of the front page to page 11+ that quickly.
This company is a scam and it concerns me greatly that this may have been taken down, which raises the obvious question of why. User jdh (Josh Hannah of Matrix Partners), an investor in JustFab, tried defending the company but copped a (deserved) beating from the HN masses to the deceptive (arguably fraudulent) tactics of the modern-day "shoe of the month" club that is JustFab.
As another user mentioned, TechCrunch covered the class auction lawsuit (from 2011?) on the same day.
TechCrunch wrote a whole post on the shady checkout practices on Friday: http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/27/not-so-vip/
It hit #3 then immediately dissappeared.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391
It hit the top spot of front page for a while, then was silently taken down, and my HN account "wenxun" was soft-banned.
Which is to say, relatively low-damage varieties of evil.
It's a whole different ball game when you're using said patterns to directly extract money from people's bank accounts.
It's a little like calling a bank robbery "shoplifting". I feel like extremely egregious violations of basic morals and ethics shouldn't be described with the same word we use to describe garden variety sketchy practices.
Companies are going to continue to do it because they aren't likely to lose. Best we can do is name and shame everyone involved.
We already know "people don't read online" (anywhere?), so adding words outside of the experience itself justifying their actions isn't just a "dark pattern," it's much worse.
I think dignifying it with the name "dark pattern" makes it too easy to dismiss as "oh, one of those silly things people do to get more signups" versus "Uh, this iOS app just maxed out my credit card because I let my 5 year old play PAY-FOR-POINTS 2.0 FREE EDITION."
Wikipedia:
> In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual
law.com:
> the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
> A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
fbi.gov, justice.gov:
> [Ponzi Schemes, Fake Lotteries, and Pump&Dump Schemes are typical examples of fraud]
I doubt that one of the above could save themselves from the wrath of the justice department by burying a disclaimer in a heap of legalese served up alongside their bait (otherwise they would be doing it en masse). So the question is what fundamentally separates these from smaller-denomination uses of dark patterns. I'd love for someone who knows what they're talking about to weigh in.
I love how this is the sales pitch to investors.[1] Meanwhile, the sales pitch to consumers is basically do everything possible to <hide> this. see, eg: Previous HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391
_________
[1] See linked article, in the Crunchbase Section.