4 ms·

Personally, I just think specificity makes for more interesting discussion. It's easy to say "there oughta be a law" but it's kind of empty calories, intellectu

Personally, I just think specificity makes for more interesting discussion. It's easy to say "there oughta be a law" but it's kind of empty calories, intellectually. Responding with aggressive negativity to people asking you to be more concrete is a real conversation stopper.

dylan604 5y ago
The conversation stopping seems to be the agenda of modern day. Nobody actually wants to solve issues, because then they can't argue on the issue any longer. So when the questions get tough, pivot, gas light, whataboutism, whatever to avoid getting pinned down. For actual furthering of the discussion on wording, something vague like 'any dialog presented to user must be done in the most consumer friendly manner' isn't very good because it's too vague. Getting specific like 'automatically checking/highlight/enabling the options vendor prefers' is too specific because then the vendor would use something not a check/highlight/etc. These kind of things are ripe for "spirit of the law" interpretations, but we've long since given up that kind of good intentions.
GavinMcG 5y ago
I don't mind a specific discussion. I react with negativity to two things: the expectation that the next step in the conversation can't happen without some fleshed-out perfected proposal, and the demand for someone else to come up with that solution, rather than making a positive contribution oneself. The problem isn't "asking you to be more concrete" because you can do that while avoiding those two negative contributions. For example, a response could have been: > How would you tailor that law? I have a hard time describing exactly what's wrong with dark patterns in a way I think would be enforceable, even though I know it when I see it. or > I think a law would have to be carefully written. One starting point might be requiring cancellation to be available using the same process as subscription - for example, if there's a signup form online, there must be an equivalent cancellation form. which are at least contributions rather than just an insistence that there's a problem that has to be addressed before these ideas can even be considered. Even just "what language would you propose?" without all the baggage of the original comment at least moves the discussion forward.

dylan604 5y ago

The conversation stopping seems to be the agenda of modern day. Nobody actually wants to solve issues, because then they can't argue on the issue any longer. So when the questions get tough, pivot, gas light, whataboutism, whatever to avoid getting pinned down. For actual furthering of the discussion on wording, something vague like 'any dialog presented to user must be done in the most consumer friendly manner' isn't very good because it's too vague. Getting specific like 'automatically checking/highlight/enabling the options vendor prefers' is too specific because then the vendor would use something not a check/highlight/etc. These kind of things are ripe for "spirit of the law" interpretations, but we've long since given up that kind of good intentions.

GavinMcG 5y ago

I don't mind a specific discussion. I react with negativity to two things: the expectation that the next step in the conversation can't happen without some fleshed-out perfected proposal, and the demand for someone else to come up with that solution, rather than making a positive contribution oneself. The problem isn't "asking you to be more concrete" because you can do that while avoiding those two negative contributions. For example, a response could have been: > How would you tailor that law? I have a hard time describing exactly what's wrong with dark patterns in a way I think would be enforceable, even though I know it when I see it. or > I think a law would have to be carefully written. One starting point might be requiring cancellation to be available using the same process as subscription - for example, if there's a signup form online, there must be an equivalent cancellation form. which are at least contributions rather than just an insistence that there's a problem that has to be addressed before these ideas can even be considered. Even just "what language would you propose?" without all the baggage of the original comment at least moves the discussion forward.