4 ms·

I agree with the intention... But! Such a system would become so inherently complex, because even in things as simple as "e-commerce" there is so much variatio

I agree with the intention... But! Such a system would become so inherently complex, because even in things as simple as "e-commerce" there is so much variation in how the whole purchasing experience works. It would start by supporting only a few "mainstream" business model, then growing more and more complex to handle all the different sorts of shops (bulk discounts? split payment methods? multiple destinations? group buy? subscriptions?) to the point where it would become basically as complex as the Web. Just look at the Web, becoming more complex as to be basically its own operating system running inside an operating system.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
OK, now ignore the one example I gave and consider what if a law addressed known dark patterns that we see in online forms. What if there were fines per infringement associated with doing the things we know are dark patterns? Too complex? Please explain. As for the OS inside an OS comment, I think that relates to today's corporate web browsers not the web. Those programs can definitely take over a computer -- they do much more than "browse" the web. I think of the web though as web servers and the content they serve. The HTML pages on one server may be hyperlinked to pages on other servers and that linkage may resemble a "web". The web is not the functional equivalent of an OS, but those corporate browsers might be. The web is more like files, e.g., documents and scripts. File servers with documents that hyperlink to documents on other file servers. That is why we say "access the web". The browser is not the web, it is a program we use to access the web.
onion2k 6y ago
There's no need for a law that specifically allows or disallows implementations of things. There just needs to be a legal body that allows someone to refer a website to an adjudicator if they believe it's using a dark pattern, and a significant fine if the adjudicator finds that they are. Let each case be judged on its own merit. Occasionally the adjudicator could publish a guide for "Things we're always going to say are dark patterns" to make it a bit easier to avoid getting fined.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  That would be a lot of work for an adjudicator considering how many websites and how many offended users. How many adjudicators would we need? What if the large companies with lots of cash can just pay the fines without impairment to their business? What if they just keep repeat offending? In paying the fines would this mean websites would have to have to be more transparent regarding who is behind each website? This is assuming they will be paying in real currency (not cryptocurrency). Who will bank the money recieved from the fines and how will that money be used?
  - onion2k 6y ago
    What if the large companies with lots of cash can just pay the fines without impairment to their business? What if they just keep repeat offending? The ban could be a percentage of revenue. For persistent offenders their DNS entries could be banned. Who will bank the money recieved from the fines and how will that money be used? The money raised from fines would pay for the service. Anything left over would be paid to me. :)
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
      Those adjudicators might try to milk the system. There might not be anything left over!

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

OK, now ignore the one example I gave and consider what if a law addressed known dark patterns that we see in online forms. What if there were fines per infringement associated with doing the things we know are dark patterns? Too complex? Please explain. As for the OS inside an OS comment, I think that relates to today's corporate web browsers not the web. Those programs can definitely take over a computer -- they do much more than "browse" the web. I think of the web though as web servers and the content they serve. The HTML pages on one server may be hyperlinked to pages on other servers and that linkage may resemble a "web". The web is not the functional equivalent of an OS, but those corporate browsers might be. The web is more like files, e.g., documents and scripts. File servers with documents that hyperlink to documents on other file servers. That is why we say "access the web". The browser is not the web, it is a program we use to access the web.

onion2k 6y ago

There's no need for a law that specifically allows or disallows implementations of things. There just needs to be a legal body that allows someone to refer a website to an adjudicator if they believe it's using a dark pattern, and a significant fine if the adjudicator finds that they are. Let each case be judged on its own merit. Occasionally the adjudicator could publish a guide for "Things we're always going to say are dark patterns" to make it a bit easier to avoid getting fined.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
That would be a lot of work for an adjudicator considering how many websites and how many offended users. How many adjudicators would we need? What if the large companies with lots of cash can just pay the fines without impairment to their business? What if they just keep repeat offending? In paying the fines would this mean websites would have to have to be more transparent regarding who is behind each website? This is assuming they will be paying in real currency (not cryptocurrency). Who will bank the money recieved from the fines and how will that money be used?
- onion2k 6y ago
  What if the large companies with lots of cash can just pay the fines without impairment to their business? What if they just keep repeat offending? The ban could be a percentage of revenue. For persistent offenders their DNS entries could be banned. Who will bank the money recieved from the fines and how will that money be used? The money raised from fines would pay for the service. Anything left over would be paid to me. :)
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    Those adjudicators might try to milk the system. There might not be anything left over!