> Criminalization of dark patterns? Criminalisation is actually better than regulation. Regulation is about what you do. Criminalisation takes into account wh

> Criminalization of dark patterns? Criminalisation is actually better than regulation. Regulation is about what you do. Criminalisation takes into account what you did and what you intended to do. One year ago, you followed every website design of the time, and made the "Please respect my privacy" button look like a the text in some terms and conditions, but the "Please sell all my data in a way that will increase my costs and make you many many dollars" look like a get-rid-of-this-inconvenience button. Since then, regulations came up that banned this behavior. You didn't hear about it and you got sued by the regulation agency. Bummer. Since then, criminal law changed that banned this behavior. You didn't hear about it and there's plenty of evidence that you were just acting in good faith - including the fact that you never actually sold the data because you're too busy attracting paying customers. You're alerted to the issue and immediately in good faith ask what they recommend and implement that. Your behavior before, during and after the event all showed a complete lack of intent. So why would you be criminally prosecuted? It's the business who have the resources to do A/B testing on barely known features who mysteriously have no data about this interface that every user comes into contact with at least once, who need to be worried about this. There would be good reason to suspect that they tried to cover up their misdeeds. Even in the absence of positive evidence, it would be evidence of bad faith if they are a business that makes more money of user data than entire countries make off everything they do and don't consider the laws around user data. The bigger issue is that it would be a pretty major change of direction.