33 ms·
I have had to build things I consider to be dark patterns. Normally, it goes something like this: 1. Client asks for something that is a dark pattern. 2. I o
by mierz00 5y ago
I have had to build things I consider to be dark patterns.
Normally, it goes something like this:
1. Client asks for something that is a dark pattern.
2. I outline that it is morally questionable to do that and give a suggestion on how it can be done otherwise.
3. Client insists that they don’t care or don’t agree because they feel as it will bring in more money.
4. I end up building it.
I do have the choice to outright say no, but I’ve found that it normally comes down to a compromise. Some clients are not willing to budge but we can always steer them in the right direction.
- alkonaut 5y agoSo the solution here would be a fine that is also affecting the developer. Knowinbly aiding in breaking a law is usually frowned upon. “I did what they said because they won’t pay me otherwise” usually doesn’t fly. I understand it’s hard to say no but it would perhaps be easier to say “we’ll build that but it’ll cost you 5x more because we would be taking a legal risk”. Making the option to follow the regulation cheaper has to be the goal.
- moduspol 5y agoMaybe imprisonment would be better. Just a few years to teach the lesson. I mean this developer knowingly aided in getting users to see more targeted ads!
- kuschku 5y agoWe're calling ourselves software engineers, maybe we should have personal liability like professional engineers then as well.
- madeofpalk 5y agoI definitely do not call myself an engineer. I make glorified blogs.
- alkonaut 5y agoIt’s not a petty crime to trade in peoples private information. Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. I’d save that for execs of companies that actually make money in the actual trade of PII. There will be room in prisons when they let people out who used <blink> tags 20 years ago…
- moduspol 5y ago> Prison sounds a bit harsh though. Especially for the cookie banner end of the spectrum. The developer knew what s/he was doing. We're not talking jaywalking here--this person (!!) made it slightly more difficult to make a choice that most users don't understand or care about anyway! And the result is more targeted advertising! How can you stand idly by?
- alkonaut 5y agoI mean deterrence is probably achieved with fines of the size that ends companies
- shukantpal 5y agoChanging the response of your HTTP server does not warrant jail time
- moduspol 5y agoTell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. Imagine your own mother being subjected to this kind of thing. Wouldn't you want jail time for the perpetrator? Would you stop there?
- shukantpal 5y ago> Tell that to the numerous people who see an ad for something actually relevant to them instead of something only vaguely relevant to the site's primary audience. You're not being subjected to some kind of torture; in fact, you are responsible for sending the HTTP request and executing it on your computer.
- deepsun 5y ago> Just a few years to teach the lesson You sound like a Stalin (I came from an authoritarian country). Imprisonment usually does an amusingly bad job at "teaching a lesson". If you want to "teach a lesson", then why not torture?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- vanusa 5y agoThat's a classic slippery-slope argument there. That is to say, a non-argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope There's nothing "authoritarian" about imposing criminal penalties on those responsible for not just violations -- but as in this case, egregious, massive and intentional violations of consumer protection regulations. It's just how a civil society works.
- moduspol 5y agoI was being sarcastic, but yes, I do think these threads tend to encourage a groupthink mentality. The vast majority of users like free websites and do not feel like targeted advertising is a serious problem. This was true before GDPR and these silly cookie warnings, and it continues to be true. Likewise, implementing a cookie dialog that requires more clicks to opt out completely is not so morally questionable as to justify the discussion I had responded to.
- remus 5y ago> So the solution here would be a fine that is also affecting the developer. I'm not sure that's the right thing here. You'd end up with some poor junior dev getting punished for what is essentially a decision by their boss.
- alkonaut 5y agoBy “developer” I mean the firm employing the developer, not the individual. A contractor company for example.
- 29083011397778 5y agoI think that just leaves everyone with an incentive to keep it quiet. A monetary reward for the reporting dev and a fine for the person authorizing the build puts incentives in the right place, IMO.
- deepsun 5y agoWhat if a poor junior engineer built a bad bridge and people died?
- onionisafruit 5y agoThe liability is on the licensed engineer who signed off on it.
- remus 5y agoThe engineer is part of a larger system though, and imo it's the fault of the system if a mistake from a single junior engineer can cause deaths.
- allo37 5y agoI was waiting for someone to make this point; It's funny how in other engineering disciplines there are clear repercussions for designing something that breaks the law, but software engineers are somehow exempt. "The client didn't want to pay for a GFI so it's not my fault he got electrocuted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
- neeleshs 5y agoMorally questionable != Illegal
- alkonaut 5y agoBreaking EU directives isn’t merely morally questionable. This is as close to law as we’ll see on EU level. States implement laws to enforce directives.
- fer 5y agoNitpick: you can't break an EU directive. Directives are frameworks of laws that the states have to implement. Here it's the French implementation of the EU directive what was violated.
- vanusa 5y agoSo the solution here would be a fine that is also affecting the developer. No, the solution is jail time for the founders and board members of these companies. Along with extremely harsh and vindictive confiscation of their assets. And generous incentives for developers (such as the GP commenter) to snitch on these people for asking them to be knowingly complicit in their immoral activities.
- cool_dude85 5y agoWeird that the people who actually produce these things get let off the hook though, right? So you build it and don't get in trouble, just that mean ol' CEO.
- feanaro 5y agoThe mean ol' CEO has several orders of magnitude more resources in his control than the person that builds it, hence must be considered responsible to a greater degree.
- cool_dude85 5y agoI can agree that he needs to be punished to a greater extent due to his broad responsibility. But nothing at all for the ones who actually performed the work to build these illegal sites?
- vanusa 5y agoNo one said there should be no punishment at all for leaf-node employees. Just that about 99 percent of our resources should be focused on those with the most leverage over the situation.
- vanusa 5y agoNothing to do with "mean". There's no need to emotionalize. It's about focusing on people with (1) the most leverage over the decision-making process and (2) perfect visibility into the consequences (legal and otherwise) of their actions. That is -- when you're dealing with the mob, you doing go after the delivery boy. You go after the foot soldiers and kingpins.
- _jal 5y ago> fine that is also affecting the developer That quickly turns in to, the rich guy who will profit from the lawbreaking needs a scapegoat. Always more dignified to tell important people they're out of line by punishing their serfs, don't you know.
- alkonaut 5y agoThe developer (contractor) can be at least as big and wealthy as the buying company. I don’t mean developer as in an individual contributor, I mean an implementor, often contractor, which will normally be a company too. Right now it’s too easy to cut out a niche of selling snake oil services like “automatic cookie banners” with dark patterns and batteries included. Meanwhile companies are fooled by these companies into thinking that if they just pay the $ for their “compliance solution” they are done. Here is where I’d like to see the sellers of the snake oil take part of the responsibility and not just the buyers.
- feanaro 5y agoWhat is it's a small company, perhaps even a single person company? Punishing them would have a disproportionally greater negative effect on their livelihood than it would for the people in charge of the company ordering the illegal thing to be built.
- alkonaut 5y agoYou mean, a company in the business of selling cookie banners that are deliberately in violation of regulations, should be spared because its owner needs to eat? I can't see why anyone would have that sympathy.
- feanaro 5y agoI'm arguing against going after small business contractors implementing stuff that is deliberately in violation of regulations and instead going after the large business that is ordering such an implementation.
- Spivak 5y agoYes but prior to that you need to make software developers "professionals" with licensing and an ethics board. Without the ability to say, "I won't build this, and you can't replace me with someone who will" putting the onus on individual devs is pointless.
- 8note 5y agoI think the solution would be to make software development be more like engineering. Have a licensing body that includes an ethical code of conduct, and breaking it will result in fines or having your license revoked
- 908B64B197 5y ago> Knowinbly aiding in breaking a law is usually frowned upon. "I did what they said because they won't pay me otherwise" usually doesn't fly. Modern weapons require cutting edge engineering. Going after web devs but leaving alone engineers who created litteral death machines would be an interesting position. Now, engineers could decide to make software engineering a real discipline by getting a regulatory body with and start enforcing the tittle properly (but this is widely unpopular and as far as I know, not done anywhere).
- alkonaut 5y agoI’m talking about going after developers in the sense of “subcontractors”, not humans. Also, weapons manufacturing isn’t illegal I can’t see how there could be a case for going after anyone for it? We don’t have a morality and ethics police (at least not in most western countries)
- mierz00 5y agoJust to be clear, I have never developed anything that is illegal.
- teddyh 5y agoI suggest you use that money you earned to buy a spine.