4 ms·

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel l

One thing I don't understand is why we are calling these patterns _dark_ rather than _manipulative_, or even just calling it straight up manipulation? I feel like manipulation has a clear meaning for a lot of people, which I would define as attempts at making you do things against your best interest. This definitely applies to booking.com's multiple practices of creating artificial urgency, various website's "opt-in" to their tracker cookie policy, etc. I don't believe it "weakens" the meaning of manipulation as a term. The appropriate red flags should be raised when hearing about it. To me, the term "dark pattern" itself seems like a dark pattern, intended to obfuscate what is really meant to those unfamiliar with internet lingo. But, at least the dot org -is-was still available.

kace91 7y ago
We could rescue the classic "evil" to define them. Short, to the point and less abstract.
- platz 7y ago
  Not catchy enough
octosphere 7y ago
It's probably called dark because the user is often 'left in the dark'[0] about how to use the interface [0] https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/left+in+the+dark https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/left+in+the+dark
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hirundo 7y ago
Arguably you can be manipulative without being dark, e.g. manipulate people into returning to your website by making it attractive, fast loading, with lots of relevant, accurate, high signal to noise content. We tend to use the word to refer to dark manipulations, as in > To tamper with or falsify for personal gain. But it can be a positive thing as in about half of this definition: > To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.
- TuringTest 7y ago
  Yeah, but the latter one is called "influence", not "manipulate". I think "dark pattern" is used because it's shorter and more evocative.
doctorpangloss 7y ago
It’s a beautiful term, like doublespeak. For some people, it’s hard to define manipulative, because it must carefully exclude all the things that we ourselves do that is manipulative. Like imagine all those people working for the S&P 500 companies. Amazon, Apple, Disney, Home Depot, AT&T, whatever. Things they do? Neither manipulative no dark pattern. Automatically transitioning from a free trial to a subscription in the App Store? Bright pattern! Essentially unmoderated reviews on products and mysterious badges? Phone locking? Even Disney Channel runs ads, they’re just called Movie Surfers and it’s only cross promotion in the world’s largest media business. Dark patterns, that’s for things that make money but are not S&P 500. People will debate if something Google does is dark or bright but booking.com? I mean fuck them right? Nobody is defending some business that isn’t growing their pension or hiring their kid, but we’re talking about it not because it offends our morals but because it makes a bunch of money. Then there’s just day to day stuff that we do. For some people, it can’t be manipulative or a dark pattern if we personally do it. For example, generalizing about people of a different ethnicity than us. Or considering an argument won so long as the last word spoken agrees with us. “That’s not manipulative,” you’ll say. Fucking exactly! We can’t see how things that we ourselves sometimes do as manipulative, and litigating that on an Internet forum is fucking stupid so fuck me. Many things are manipulative. Commerce and relationships could fall apart if we attached that moral quandary of taking advantage of people via a difference or misrepresentation of knowledge, and it’s easy to say that’s okay so long as it’s not you who’s the victim. It’s a bipartisan evil, really, and it can be found everywhere. Maybe that means manipulative is meaningless. So here we are: dark pattern, not manipulative.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
harrybr 7y ago
I'm the person who coined the term. I was interested in design patterns and pattern libraries. I noticed that we had design patterns (good things to learn from), anti-patterns (things worth avoiding) but there wasn't an equivalent term for deceptive design practices. "Dark Patterns" was the title of a talk I gave in 2008. I'm not sure why everyone chose to use the term. The idea of it being intentionally obscure is quite wonderfully Hacker News-eseque.

kace91 7y ago

We could rescue the classic "evil" to define them. Short, to the point and less abstract.

platz 7y ago
Not catchy enough

octosphere 7y ago

It's probably called dark because the user is often 'left in the dark'[0] about how to use the interface [0] https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/left+in+the+dark https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/left+in+the+dark

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hirundo 7y ago

Arguably you can be manipulative without being dark, e.g. manipulate people into returning to your website by making it attractive, fast loading, with lots of relevant, accurate, high signal to noise content. We tend to use the word to refer to dark manipulations, as in > To tamper with or falsify for personal gain. But it can be a positive thing as in about half of this definition: > To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously.

TuringTest 7y ago
Yeah, but the latter one is called "influence", not "manipulate". I think "dark pattern" is used because it's shorter and more evocative.

doctorpangloss 7y ago

It’s a beautiful term, like doublespeak. For some people, it’s hard to define manipulative, because it must carefully exclude all the things that we ourselves do that is manipulative. Like imagine all those people working for the S&P 500 companies. Amazon, Apple, Disney, Home Depot, AT&T, whatever. Things they do? Neither manipulative no dark pattern. Automatically transitioning from a free trial to a subscription in the App Store? Bright pattern! Essentially unmoderated reviews on products and mysterious badges? Phone locking? Even Disney Channel runs ads, they’re just called Movie Surfers and it’s only cross promotion in the world’s largest media business. Dark patterns, that’s for things that make money but are not S&P 500. People will debate if something Google does is dark or bright but booking.com? I mean fuck them right? Nobody is defending some business that isn’t growing their pension or hiring their kid, but we’re talking about it not because it offends our morals but because it makes a bunch of money. Then there’s just day to day stuff that we do. For some people, it can’t be manipulative or a dark pattern if we personally do it. For example, generalizing about people of a different ethnicity than us. Or considering an argument won so long as the last word spoken agrees with us. “That’s not manipulative,” you’ll say. Fucking exactly! We can’t see how things that we ourselves sometimes do as manipulative, and litigating that on an Internet forum is fucking stupid so fuck me. Many things are manipulative. Commerce and relationships could fall apart if we attached that moral quandary of taking advantage of people via a difference or misrepresentation of knowledge, and it’s easy to say that’s okay so long as it’s not you who’s the victim. It’s a bipartisan evil, really, and it can be found everywhere. Maybe that means manipulative is meaningless. So here we are: dark pattern, not manipulative.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

harrybr 7y ago

I'm the person who coined the term. I was interested in design patterns and pattern libraries. I noticed that we had design patterns (good things to learn from), anti-patterns (things worth avoiding) but there wasn't an equivalent term for deceptive design practices. "Dark Patterns" was the title of a talk I gave in 2008. I'm not sure why everyone chose to use the term. The idea of it being intentionally obscure is quite wonderfully Hacker News-eseque.