12 ms·

> It's hard for people to understand or care about ethics in programming. One possible reason for this is that the issues are too nuanced Oh. "too nuanced". Th

> It's hard for people to understand or care about ethics in programming. One possible reason for this is that the issues are too nuanced Oh. "too nuanced". The author is too soft. Most probable reason is that business owners are assholes. EDIT: oh, and because most developers are spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles, unlike the author. If everybody really cared about privacy as they say they do we wouldn't have so many issues. I mean, somebody is implementing all those features. sorry for the harsh tone but I don't know how to say it any other way. When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad.

3pt14159 5y ago
There are many people that have made quiet choices and can't talk about them for numerous reason. NDAs for example, or, my favourite: Sometimes there is no defence for a certain type of technique. It's just something nobody thought to do but any company could do it, and yet nobody seems to realize it. There is this huge knowledge gap between software developers and almost all business owners.
prophesi 5y ago
Our best bet for dark patterns to disappear is via legislation, not putting the onus on developers. The initial premise that everyone cares about privacy simply isn't true, and with the influx of developers in the job market, it's just a matter of finding someone with similarly lax ethics.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  The saying “a sucker is born every minute” kindof applies here. Just because you and a majority of people care about ethics, doesn’t mean every programmer does. And all it takes is one who doesn’t for the company to be able to implement it. The free market only works to an extent, and harm to consumers is a valid reason for the government to step in.
  - foxtrottbravo 5y ago
    You reminded me of a saying I've heard a while ago which May be roughly translated to "the mother of suckers is always pregnant"
    - quesera 5y ago
      I love these non-sequitur literally-mostly-correct-but-conceptually-totally-wrong translations of aphorisms and titles. One of my faves: in a Spanish-speaking country, an Ernest Hemingway book published (legal status unknown) in English, titled "Goodbye to the Weapons". Another: from a customer service rep in Southeast Asia: "If I am in your shoe..."
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    Long ago in my career, I was asked to essentially cheat benchmarks. Our software was often benchmarked by third parties to compare the product's performance across competitors. Our product was not as good, so after squeezing in every legit performance improvement we could possibly find, I was eventually asked to write code that queries the application running, and if it was a known benchmark program, just drop expensive API calls in a way not very noticeable. This would produce incorrect, but fast, output but only for benchmarks. I told my manager respectfully that's where I draw the line. He said, that's totally OK, I kept my job and he just assigned someone else who didn't care about the ethics. Quit a few months later for this and other reasons. I'm a big believer in being part of the solution, not the problem, but there are always plenty of developers who don't care at all and are fine with "sure, boss, whatever you say, boss".
- kilburn 5y ago
  The fact that legislation exists has done me wonders fending against dark patterns. Real example: Client> We want the "I agree" button checked by default Me> I'm not a lawyer, but I think this goes against the GDPR in that users must give their consent by action, not by inaction. I would advise to at least check with your lawyers first. Client> Oh! I'm so tired of those laws, we'll get back to you after checking. (a couple days later) Client> Yeah you were right, lawyers say we'd better leave it unchecked. I know that client very well. I would have _never_ been able to convince them on a morality argument. What's more, after a few interactions like the above now they don't bother going to the lawyers anymore. I just say "I'm not sure this is acceptable" and they immediately agree to whatever non-shady alternative I propose.
- danuker 5y ago
  If OP's client is in the EU, then what was asked is already illegal.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >Our best bet for dark patterns to disappear is via legislation And what would the language you propose look like for this legislation that doesn't have loopholes, caveats, etc for people to get around once the lobbyists are done with it?
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    The knee-jerk reaction that writing good legislation is just too hard seems to always come up. But it's harmful. We don't need to have model language ready to ship just to be allowed to discuss whether an individual or collective solution is appropriate for the problem, and "you haven't perfected the details" is an unhelpful conversation stopper. It represents the worst kind of cynical resignation. In the long run, that's just as fatal to democracy as the lobbyists you're worried about, because it shows you've already given up.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Writing good legislation is really easy. The issue is that the more power you concentrate in one decision making body (in this case, legislators) the more important the issues they deal with are. That consumes bandwidth, and means that these sort 'they should step in and decide how people write software!' ideas are going to get corrupted by pressure groups who want to use the power to achieve their own ends. If I have to vote for someone who is going to enact policy I actually want, and the trade off is they are shady on web implementation policy - I don't care about web policy that much. No-one does. The government can't possibly put out reliably good regulation on the range of topics that people want good regulation while that dynamic is in play.
      - GavinMcG 5y ago
        The government can't possibly put out perfect legislation in every area, no. But it's ridiculous to assume that everything is inherently corrupted and that there's never any hope. I mean, sure, if every member of Congress is shady on web policy but shares your views on more important issues, then web policy falls behind. But that's just your cynicism speaking - you've got no reason to think that web policy is automatically lacking support. The other fault in your model is that Congress actually delegates the vast amount of lawmaking to administrative agencies, who are equipped to deal with the less important issues. The FTC, the CFPB, or the FCC could all credibly claim some authority over dark pattern regulation, though I don't know enough admin law to know who would be most appropriate. Agency rulemaking isn't a perfect process either, but it doesn't have the concentrated power problem you're describing and it deals with tons of lower-priority topics. Go read the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/ https://www.federalregister.gov/
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
> EDIT: oh, and because most developers are spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles, unlike the author. If everybody really cared about privacy as they say they do we wouldn't have so many issues. I mean, somebody is implementing all those features. Why holding only developers responsible for non-ethical features? What about the actual decision makers and legislation. By the same logic, if only factory workers decided it's immoral to build weapons, there would be no wars. But those spineless creatures just want bread on the table and don't care about world peace. The only way to avoid these dark patterns is a set of laws that punish them. The reason why we don't have such laws is that we as a society don't know and don't care. It's we all, not only "spineless developers".
- squiggleblaz 5y ago
  > By the same logic, if only factory workers decided it's immoral to build weapons, there would be no wars. But those spineless creatures just want bread on the table and don't care about world peace. I think the question is, are developers engineers or just programmers? The responsibility of an engineer is to give pushback when it is deserved. As you say, the responsibility is on decision makers. But they care about the politics. They will try to make it look like you're on your own. But if you clearly demonstrate the mood of the company's employees, they will reconsider their position. The result will be compromise not capitulation but it's better for something to be better even if it isn't great yet.
- rytor718 5y ago
  I don't agree. Responsibility lies with the doer in this case -- the person who types the dark pattern into the code. If my manager tells me to slap my coworker, she's only barely to blame for demanding something dangerous and unethical. I'm the asshole if I do it. There's plenty of blame to go around. But at current, we really do have to do better as a community and refuse these requests far more often than we currently do.
Silhouette 5y ago
Most probable reason is that business owners are assholes. Some business owners are. Some of us do try to run our businesses in ethical ways, despite knowing very well that we could probably make a lot more money if we included a dark pattern or two. It would be nice if people could at least not insult us while we're doing it by lumping us in with the $$$ crowd and normalising the bad behaviours we want to resist.
shrimp_emoji 5y ago
>spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles Why assume they have principles?
teclordphrack2 5y ago
There is a reason big tech likes to hire from abroad. While you do get added value from different countries and cultures you also get different morals and motivation. Another reason is that it is kind of hard to care about privacy when you need to send half your check back home to support extended family that is in poverty.
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
>When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad. I feel like a lot of people saying this lately haven't tried to get a job since the pandemic. Invitations to apply from recruiters whose job it is to get people in the door are not job offers, nor royal treatment.
- YeezyMode 5y ago
  When your industry isn't on this list, https://www.aarp.org/work/job-search/info-2020/coronavirus-occupation-job-loss.html https://www.aarp.org/work/job-search/info-2020/coronavirus-o... it's understandable why people feel that way.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad. Sure, that’s understandable. But to be understand it, also remember that when highly paid experts that get royal treatment so long as they conform confront employers over ethical issues...you get the Google Ethical AI massacre. “Royal treatment” isn’t unconditional, and means you have a lot to lose.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> sorry for the harsh tone but I don't know how to say it any other way You shouldn't have to apologize. Nothing wrong with being harsh. We should be harsh, especially with people who perpetuate these unacceptable practices. Indignation is a perfectly valid response when faced with this.

3pt14159 5y ago

There are many people that have made quiet choices and can't talk about them for numerous reason. NDAs for example, or, my favourite: Sometimes there is no defence for a certain type of technique. It's just something nobody thought to do but any company could do it, and yet nobody seems to realize it. There is this huge knowledge gap between software developers and almost all business owners.

prophesi 5y ago

Our best bet for dark patterns to disappear is via legislation, not putting the onus on developers. The initial premise that everyone cares about privacy simply isn't true, and with the influx of developers in the job market, it's just a matter of finding someone with similarly lax ethics.

colejohnson66 5y ago
The saying “a sucker is born every minute” kindof applies here. Just because you and a majority of people care about ethics, doesn’t mean every programmer does. And all it takes is one who doesn’t for the company to be able to implement it. The free market only works to an extent, and harm to consumers is a valid reason for the government to step in.
- foxtrottbravo 5y ago
  You reminded me of a saying I've heard a while ago which May be roughly translated to "the mother of suckers is always pregnant"
  - quesera 5y ago
    I love these non-sequitur literally-mostly-correct-but-conceptually-totally-wrong translations of aphorisms and titles. One of my faves: in a Spanish-speaking country, an Ernest Hemingway book published (legal status unknown) in English, titled "Goodbye to the Weapons". Another: from a customer service rep in Southeast Asia: "If I am in your shoe..."
- ryandrake 5y ago
  Long ago in my career, I was asked to essentially cheat benchmarks. Our software was often benchmarked by third parties to compare the product's performance across competitors. Our product was not as good, so after squeezing in every legit performance improvement we could possibly find, I was eventually asked to write code that queries the application running, and if it was a known benchmark program, just drop expensive API calls in a way not very noticeable. This would produce incorrect, but fast, output but only for benchmarks. I told my manager respectfully that's where I draw the line. He said, that's totally OK, I kept my job and he just assigned someone else who didn't care about the ethics. Quit a few months later for this and other reasons. I'm a big believer in being part of the solution, not the problem, but there are always plenty of developers who don't care at all and are fine with "sure, boss, whatever you say, boss".
kilburn 5y ago
The fact that legislation exists has done me wonders fending against dark patterns. Real example: Client> We want the "I agree" button checked by default Me> I'm not a lawyer, but I think this goes against the GDPR in that users must give their consent by action, not by inaction. I would advise to at least check with your lawyers first. Client> Oh! I'm so tired of those laws, we'll get back to you after checking. (a couple days later) Client> Yeah you were right, lawyers say we'd better leave it unchecked. I know that client very well. I would have _never_ been able to convince them on a morality argument. What's more, after a few interactions like the above now they don't bother going to the lawyers anymore. I just say "I'm not sure this is acceptable" and they immediately agree to whatever non-shady alternative I propose.
danuker 5y ago
If OP's client is in the EU, then what was asked is already illegal.
dylan604 5y ago
>Our best bet for dark patterns to disappear is via legislation And what would the language you propose look like for this legislation that doesn't have loopholes, caveats, etc for people to get around once the lobbyists are done with it?
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  The knee-jerk reaction that writing good legislation is just too hard seems to always come up. But it's harmful. We don't need to have model language ready to ship just to be allowed to discuss whether an individual or collective solution is appropriate for the problem, and "you haven't perfected the details" is an unhelpful conversation stopper. It represents the worst kind of cynical resignation. In the long run, that's just as fatal to democracy as the lobbyists you're worried about, because it shows you've already given up.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Writing good legislation is really easy. The issue is that the more power you concentrate in one decision making body (in this case, legislators) the more important the issues they deal with are. That consumes bandwidth, and means that these sort 'they should step in and decide how people write software!' ideas are going to get corrupted by pressure groups who want to use the power to achieve their own ends. If I have to vote for someone who is going to enact policy I actually want, and the trade off is they are shady on web implementation policy - I don't care about web policy that much. No-one does. The government can't possibly put out reliably good regulation on the range of topics that people want good regulation while that dynamic is in play.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      The government can't possibly put out perfect legislation in every area, no. But it's ridiculous to assume that everything is inherently corrupted and that there's never any hope. I mean, sure, if every member of Congress is shady on web policy but shares your views on more important issues, then web policy falls behind. But that's just your cynicism speaking - you've got no reason to think that web policy is automatically lacking support. The other fault in your model is that Congress actually delegates the vast amount of lawmaking to administrative agencies, who are equipped to deal with the less important issues. The FTC, the CFPB, or the FCC could all credibly claim some authority over dark pattern regulation, though I don't know enough admin law to know who would be most appropriate. Agency rulemaking isn't a perfect process either, but it doesn't have the concentrated power problem you're describing and it deals with tons of lower-priority topics. Go read the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/ https://www.federalregister.gov/

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

> EDIT: oh, and because most developers are spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles, unlike the author. If everybody really cared about privacy as they say they do we wouldn't have so many issues. I mean, somebody is implementing all those features. Why holding only developers responsible for non-ethical features? What about the actual decision makers and legislation. By the same logic, if only factory workers decided it's immoral to build weapons, there would be no wars. But those spineless creatures just want bread on the table and don't care about world peace. The only way to avoid these dark patterns is a set of laws that punish them. The reason why we don't have such laws is that we as a society don't know and don't care. It's we all, not only "spineless developers".

squiggleblaz 5y ago
> By the same logic, if only factory workers decided it's immoral to build weapons, there would be no wars. But those spineless creatures just want bread on the table and don't care about world peace. I think the question is, are developers engineers or just programmers? The responsibility of an engineer is to give pushback when it is deserved. As you say, the responsibility is on decision makers. But they care about the politics. They will try to make it look like you're on your own. But if you clearly demonstrate the mood of the company's employees, they will reconsider their position. The result will be compromise not capitulation but it's better for something to be better even if it isn't great yet.
rytor718 5y ago
I don't agree. Responsibility lies with the doer in this case -- the person who types the dark pattern into the code. If my manager tells me to slap my coworker, she's only barely to blame for demanding something dangerous and unethical. I'm the asshole if I do it. There's plenty of blame to go around. But at current, we really do have to do better as a community and refuse these requests far more often than we currently do.

Silhouette 5y ago

Most probable reason is that business owners are assholes. Some business owners are. Some of us do try to run our businesses in ethical ways, despite knowing very well that we could probably make a lot more money if we included a dark pattern or two. It would be nice if people could at least not insult us while we're doing it by lumping us in with the $$$ crowd and normalising the bad behaviours we want to resist.

shrimp_emoji 5y ago

>spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles Why assume they have principles?

teclordphrack2 5y ago

There is a reason big tech likes to hire from abroad. While you do get added value from different countries and cultures you also get different morals and motivation. Another reason is that it is kind of hard to care about privacy when you need to send half your check back home to support extended family that is in poverty.

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

>When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad. I feel like a lot of people saying this lately haven't tried to get a job since the pandemic. Invitations to apply from recruiters whose job it is to get people in the door are not job offers, nor royal treatment.

YeezyMode 5y ago
When your industry isn't on this list, https://www.aarp.org/work/job-search/info-2020/coronavirus-occupation-job-loss.html https://www.aarp.org/work/job-search/info-2020/coronavirus-o... it's understandable why people feel that way.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad. Sure, that’s understandable. But to be understand it, also remember that when highly paid experts that get royal treatment so long as they conform confront employers over ethical issues...you get the Google Ethical AI massacre. “Royal treatment” isn’t unconditional, and means you have a lot to lose.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> sorry for the harsh tone but I don't know how to say it any other way You shouldn't have to apologize. Nothing wrong with being harsh. We should be harsh, especially with people who perpetuate these unacceptable practices. Indignation is a perfectly valid response when faced with this.