6 ms·

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

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/

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/