5 ms·

I agree and that goal sounds similar to the goal of Kill Analytics [1]. "The industry" doesn't even exist as an entity. Gov regulation seems like the only viabl

by soared 10y ago

I agree and that goal sounds similar to the goal of Kill Analytics [1]. "The industry" doesn't even exist as an entity. Gov regulation seems like the only viable way to fix it. But on the other hand, Google AdSense has done a lot to improve advertising online. Popups and bad ads used to be waaay worse than they are now (not that they are okay now). So maybe we do just need a few big players to step up and change things. [1] https://hello-kill.github.io/ https://hello-kill.github.io/

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> So maybe we do just need a few big players to step up and change things. The question again is, how to make those big players do something that will lose them money.
- soared 10y ago
  Do it in a way that earns them more money. Sounds difficult but that is what adsense did. If legit ux practices earn more, companies will use them. Potential scenario: someone makes a browser plugin that blocks dark patterns as if they were ads, so companies who use them don't see any traction with them. Or 50 years out when everyone is computer literate, users are aware of dark patterns and punish companies who use them by not buying their products.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    AdSense also had the massive data Google had on users to entice advertisers with. What would entice Google this time?
    - soared 10y ago
      Conversion rate optimization tools and data. Businesses turn to dark patterns to increase the conversion rate, and there isn't a ubiquitous tool for them to use. In theory google could provide a lot better funnel analytics and offer suggestions/options to improve that aren't dark patterns. Its a stretch, but hey..
mtgx 10y ago
For advertising, there is an "industry" that can agree on such things, and it's called the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). In fact, they're now acceptingpublic comments until December 22 on the new ad types that are supposed to be "leaner": https://www.iab.com/newadportfolio/ https://www.iab.com/newadportfolio/
- soared 10y ago
  Thats a good point for advertising. Though iab doesn't touch much for onsite ux outside of display ads. In my limited experience iab perpetuates/supports what most consumers would see as deceitful. Not CRO, but excessive data collection and sharing. (I'm iab ad ops certified)
alphapapa 10y ago
> Gov regulation seems like the only viable way to fix it. So we can have more "This website uses cookies, okay?!?!?" banners popping up all over the place? No thanks. Besides, do you really want a bureaucrat telling you how to design your web site, with penalties enforceable by law?
- soared 10y ago
  Yeah those popups suck. I think there are better ways to implement things like that. Maybe a button in a web browser that reports sites to a 3rd party that assesses sites and can hand info over to the government for levying fines.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  >Besides, do you really want a bureaucrat telling you how to design your web site, with penalties enforceable by law? "Bureaucrats" already tell you how to design your website. There is already laws against some forms of deceitful advertising, unfair trade practices, and information sharing and the like. For example, let's say I was working to design an airline ticket booking site... https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/airline-rules-fares https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/airlin... >For both domestic and international markets, carriers must provide disclosure of the full price to be paid, including government taxes/fees as well as carrier surcharges, in their advertising, on their websites and on the passenger’s e-ticket confirmation. In addition, carriers must disclose all fees for optional services through a prominent link on their homepage, and must include information on e-ticket confirmations about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on. How about those hotel "resort fees?" Currently they FTC says they are OK as long as they are disclosed before booking. So a hotel can advertise $20/night but when you go to book say "lol btw there's also a $30 resort fee." This of course makes comparison shopping impossible and exists for no other reason to deceive you. Rumor has it the FTC is going to backtrack on the policy and disallow separate resort fees.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Those aren't web site design issues, they're truth-in-advertising and business practice issues, which apply to all forms of advertising and business. I'm talking about technical and design issues, like requiring every web site in the EU to pop up a stupid banner while you're trying to read something that blocks the content just to say, "Hey! We use cookies! Got it?" Now imagine taking that to the next level, with pages of regulations saying where and how other form elements must be laid out on the screen. Imagine another banner popping up on every EU web site saying, "Hey! Here's the link to our privacy policy! Got it?" Then clicking that away stores a cookie, which pops up the cookie banner... All because some bureaucrat who doesn't even know what an HTTP cookie is wrote a regulation requiring everyone on the whole continent to acquiesce to the bureaucrat's ignorance so he can claim to be pro-consumer and privacy-conscious and get reelected. You want more of that?
ktta 10y ago
Does anyone know how this is different from/compares to Privacy Badger[1]? It is also a chrome[2] and firefox extension[3]. [1]:https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger [2]:https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pke... [3]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badger17/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badge...
- majewsky 10y ago
  Privacy Badger is more on the defensive side: It allows you to avoid tracking, so you just disappear from the POV of the analytics platform. Kill Analytics looks more offensive. It actively sends garbage data to the analytics platform, thus destroying its value proposition to the site operator and discouraging its continued use.

by soared 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> So maybe we do just need a few big players to step up and change things. The question again is, how to make those big players do something that will lose them money.

soared 10y ago
Do it in a way that earns them more money. Sounds difficult but that is what adsense did. If legit ux practices earn more, companies will use them. Potential scenario: someone makes a browser plugin that blocks dark patterns as if they were ads, so companies who use them don't see any traction with them. Or 50 years out when everyone is computer literate, users are aware of dark patterns and punish companies who use them by not buying their products.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  AdSense also had the massive data Google had on users to entice advertisers with. What would entice Google this time?
  - soared 10y ago
    Conversion rate optimization tools and data. Businesses turn to dark patterns to increase the conversion rate, and there isn't a ubiquitous tool for them to use. In theory google could provide a lot better funnel analytics and offer suggestions/options to improve that aren't dark patterns. Its a stretch, but hey..

mtgx 10y ago

For advertising, there is an "industry" that can agree on such things, and it's called the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). In fact, they're now acceptingpublic comments until December 22 on the new ad types that are supposed to be "leaner": https://www.iab.com/newadportfolio/ https://www.iab.com/newadportfolio/

soared 10y ago
Thats a good point for advertising. Though iab doesn't touch much for onsite ux outside of display ads. In my limited experience iab perpetuates/supports what most consumers would see as deceitful. Not CRO, but excessive data collection and sharing. (I'm iab ad ops certified)

alphapapa 10y ago

> Gov regulation seems like the only viable way to fix it. So we can have more "This website uses cookies, okay?!?!?" banners popping up all over the place? No thanks. Besides, do you really want a bureaucrat telling you how to design your web site, with penalties enforceable by law?

soared 10y ago
Yeah those popups suck. I think there are better ways to implement things like that. Maybe a button in a web browser that reports sites to a 3rd party that assesses sites and can hand info over to the government for levying fines.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
>Besides, do you really want a bureaucrat telling you how to design your web site, with penalties enforceable by law? "Bureaucrats" already tell you how to design your website. There is already laws against some forms of deceitful advertising, unfair trade practices, and information sharing and the like. For example, let's say I was working to design an airline ticket booking site... https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/airline-rules-fares https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/airlin... >For both domestic and international markets, carriers must provide disclosure of the full price to be paid, including government taxes/fees as well as carrier surcharges, in their advertising, on their websites and on the passenger’s e-ticket confirmation. In addition, carriers must disclose all fees for optional services through a prominent link on their homepage, and must include information on e-ticket confirmations about the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on. How about those hotel "resort fees?" Currently they FTC says they are OK as long as they are disclosed before booking. So a hotel can advertise $20/night but when you go to book say "lol btw there's also a $30 resort fee." This of course makes comparison shopping impossible and exists for no other reason to deceive you. Rumor has it the FTC is going to backtrack on the policy and disallow separate resort fees.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Those aren't web site design issues, they're truth-in-advertising and business practice issues, which apply to all forms of advertising and business. I'm talking about technical and design issues, like requiring every web site in the EU to pop up a stupid banner while you're trying to read something that blocks the content just to say, "Hey! We use cookies! Got it?" Now imagine taking that to the next level, with pages of regulations saying where and how other form elements must be laid out on the screen. Imagine another banner popping up on every EU web site saying, "Hey! Here's the link to our privacy policy! Got it?" Then clicking that away stores a cookie, which pops up the cookie banner... All because some bureaucrat who doesn't even know what an HTTP cookie is wrote a regulation requiring everyone on the whole continent to acquiesce to the bureaucrat's ignorance so he can claim to be pro-consumer and privacy-conscious and get reelected. You want more of that?

ktta 10y ago

Does anyone know how this is different from/compares to Privacy Badger[1]? It is also a chrome[2] and firefox extension[3]. [1]:https://www.eff.org/privacybadger https://www.eff.org/privacybadger [2]:https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp?hl=en-US https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pke... [3]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badger17/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badge...

majewsky 10y ago
Privacy Badger is more on the defensive side: It allows you to avoid tracking, so you just disappear from the POV of the analytics platform. Kill Analytics looks more offensive. It actively sends garbage data to the analytics platform, thus destroying its value proposition to the site operator and discouraging its continued use.