4 ms·
>In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern. I disagree. Offering your user the option to get on your mailing list is fine. But wh
by vitd 10y ago
>In terms of ethics, I wouldn't even call it unethical or a dark pattern.
I disagree. Offering your user the option to get on your mailing list is fine. But when you a) shame them if they chose not to, and b) make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice, it becomes an unethical dark pattern. Arguably, blocking their access to the material you offered them until they make this choice is also dubious.
- gedrap 10y ago>>> shame them if they chose not to It's not unethical to potentially harm your own business. I'd say it's just bad for the business, that's all. Offline companies occasionally run silly/trying to be too clever campaigns. But no one really calls them unethical, as long as they stay clear from potentially discriminating topics. People mock them, but they don't call them unethical. >>> make it significantly harder to find the way to express their "No" choice. I see where you are coming from on this one. But, again, it's not preventing the user to quit using the standard way of quitting.
- tadfisher 10y agoObviously "No thanks", "Close", "Cancel" and so on are standard mechanisms for dismissing a form. You're arguing that it's standard to make the user read and understand that the funny or insulting quip is the mechanism to close the form. I disagree.