I specifically take issue with this statement in the piece: So often there are reasons for things to be the way they are. This seems like a motte-and-bailey [

I specifically take issue with this statement in the piece: So often there are reasons for things to be the way they are. This seems like a motte-and-bailey [1] argument. Of course there's a reason for way that things are the way they are. There's always a reason. It doesn't mean that the reason is good. Let's take, for example, the dark patterns on the Adobe website [2]. Do I need to have the "full context" behind Adobe's product engineering to know that burying a hefty cancellation fee in the fine print for what appears to be month-to-month pricing is awful? No! We can, and should call that decision out, even if we aren't certain of the full process that led up to it. In addition, I disagree with the broader point that one must have a full understanding of a system in order to disagree with it. I'm not a great cook. But I can sure tell when food tastes bad! Do I lose my ability to say, "Hey, this dish tastes bad," if I can't cook the dish myself? Do I lose the ability to say, "Hey, this car sucks," if I'm not a SAE-certified auto mechanic? Do I need to have a deep understanding of automotive supply chains in order to say that burying the controls for the heated seats two levels deep inside a touchscreen menu is a stupid idea? No, of course not. While having a full understanding of the constraints behind a system may be helpful, in practice we can and must pass judgement on systems without having that understanding. There simply isn't enough time to learn everything about everything, so sometimes what you have do is say, "Eh this sucks," and move on. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy 2: https://twitter.com/darkpatterns/status/1489901640777973768 https://twitter.com/darkpatterns/status/1489901640777973768