4 ms·

I agree with the base assessment the article poses which is that dark patterns are used to get you to pay. But the underlying implication is clear from the ton

I agree with the base assessment the article poses which is that dark patterns are used to get you to pay. But the underlying implication is clear from the tone and wording in the article - that this is a bad or dishonest thing. First off, Intuit is under no legal obligation (to my knowledge anyway) to provide any service for free. They have promised to do so, but I don't think anything related to this promise is legally binding. Second, they're in it to make money so clearly all advertising is going to be geared to the paid products. Lastly, the idea that typing a reasonable search into Google and having the page with the actual result be the 5th link which you then click into and have to read the requirement of getting something for free is somehow shady seems a bit dramatic. Not to mention that when I type that same search string into Google now it's the first link after the featured snippet (which is also a link to the IRS, but a different page). I don't think that's in any way unreasonable or undesirable. That's about as close to idiot-proof as you can get in my opinion. And we're talking about something that's free here so there's pretty much no incentive to assist it. And in this case, as per the article, there's active incentive to hide it and yet it's still really easy to find.

CreRecombinase 7y ago
I could see the logic of the argument "these aren't dark patterns", or (to a lesser extent) "these are dark patterns(and therefore dishonest), but dishonesty isn't bad". I'm having trouble working through your argument "these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest". Might a fair restatement of your argument be something like: "Reasonably informed people should know that Intuit is a profit-seeking entity, and should therefore expect Intuit to pursue all legal means to increase profit"?
- turc1656 7y ago
  That restatement is pretty accurate and I would agree with it. And I wasn't saying dishonesty isn't bad. I was saying the implication the article makes that they are dishonest is something I disagree with. So "these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest" is indeed what I'm saying - you are correct in that. I generally don't view dark patterns as dishonest. I think that's where you really took issue. I find them more of an annoyance to keep an eye out for and circumvent. And I believe nearly all dark patterns can be spotted and avoided simply by paying attention - i.e. which button is actually confirm and which one is cancel, doing a ctrl-f to find the word "unsubscribe" so you can easily find it, actually reading the words on buttons/links rather than using color as a content guide, etc. EDIT - grammatical error.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Aren't your examples an admission that dark patterns are dishonest, though? It's not like these companies are e.g. randomly coloring their buttons and just so happened to pick a misleading one. They're intentionally choosing colors that you associate with the opposite of what you want to do. The entire purpose is to trick you into performing an action you don't want to perform.
    - turc1656 7y ago
      That's a fair point and I think it comes down to the word usage - i.e. dishonest vs misleading. I would agree that they are either misleading or intentionally obfuscatory. I would not, however, say that they are dishonest because to me dishonesty means something more like an outright lie or intentional untruth. The fact that a button says "no" but is colored green is indeed intending to trick you, but it does in fact mean "no" when you click it and the appropriate action is then taken by their site/system. Similarly, the unsubscribe link might be hard to find and not colored as a link, but it's there and it works.
  - CreRecombinase 7y ago
    I think the argument "because I wasn't deceived by the deceptive behavior, it isn't dishonest", isn't a great one. Even if you take a really legalistic view, and entirely ignore the ethical implications of this kind of behavior, simply disclaiming any responsibility to the user doesn't necessarily make it so. Fine print only gets you so far.

CreRecombinase 7y ago

I could see the logic of the argument "these aren't dark patterns", or (to a lesser extent) "these are dark patterns(and therefore dishonest), but dishonesty isn't bad". I'm having trouble working through your argument "these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest". Might a fair restatement of your argument be something like: "Reasonably informed people should know that Intuit is a profit-seeking entity, and should therefore expect Intuit to pursue all legal means to increase profit"?

turc1656 7y ago
That restatement is pretty accurate and I would agree with it. And I wasn't saying dishonesty isn't bad. I was saying the implication the article makes that they are dishonest is something I disagree with. So "these are dark patterns, but they aren't dishonest" is indeed what I'm saying - you are correct in that. I generally don't view dark patterns as dishonest. I think that's where you really took issue. I find them more of an annoyance to keep an eye out for and circumvent. And I believe nearly all dark patterns can be spotted and avoided simply by paying attention - i.e. which button is actually confirm and which one is cancel, doing a ctrl-f to find the word "unsubscribe" so you can easily find it, actually reading the words on buttons/links rather than using color as a content guide, etc. EDIT - grammatical error.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Aren't your examples an admission that dark patterns are dishonest, though? It's not like these companies are e.g. randomly coloring their buttons and just so happened to pick a misleading one. They're intentionally choosing colors that you associate with the opposite of what you want to do. The entire purpose is to trick you into performing an action you don't want to perform.
  - turc1656 7y ago
    That's a fair point and I think it comes down to the word usage - i.e. dishonest vs misleading. I would agree that they are either misleading or intentionally obfuscatory. I would not, however, say that they are dishonest because to me dishonesty means something more like an outright lie or intentional untruth. The fact that a button says "no" but is colored green is indeed intending to trick you, but it does in fact mean "no" when you click it and the appropriate action is then taken by their site/system. Similarly, the unsubscribe link might be hard to find and not colored as a link, but it's there and it works.
- CreRecombinase 7y ago
  I think the argument "because I wasn't deceived by the deceptive behavior, it isn't dishonest", isn't a great one. Even if you take a really legalistic view, and entirely ignore the ethical implications of this kind of behavior, simply disclaiming any responsibility to the user doesn't necessarily make it so. Fine print only gets you so far.