3 ms·
We do know that people don't care about trust indicators. They care about warnings for danger, but they don't care about trust indicators. Trust indicators are
by brightball 7y ago
We do know that people don't care about trust indicators. They care about warnings for danger, but they don't care about trust indicators. Trust indicators are essentially, something for companies to sell.
Because everybody isn't going to pay for the trust indicator and we're going to consume plenty of things that don't have it, the indicator is basically just noise. It's why EV failed and we're about to see it repeat with this BIMI technology in the email world IMO.
On the other hand, if you get a big giant danger warning that stands out because everything else doesn't have it...it gets attention.
- localhost 7y agoWhile I agree that a giant danger warning will get attention, it also implies that someone needs to be the arbiter of "danger". And given how eagerly the giant Internet co's have embraced being gatekeepers, I don't hold out a lot of hope for this approach.
- brightball 7y agoAgreed. In this particular situation, that's really difficult to do too.
- toss1 7y agoYes, and not only that, on the other end, when the danger indicators become too frequent, they end up merely being seen as noise. ( E.g., see California cancer warnings on just about everything -- makes it hard to distinguish between the <thing that will kill you now> vs the <thing that may increase your chance of a curable cancer by 1/10^6>, so it all gets ignored. )