3 ms·

I've seen how these types of things play out in companies, though. I'm proud to say that I once did refuse to implement something that I thought was unethical.

I've seen how these types of things play out in companies, though. I'm proud to say that I once did refuse to implement something that I thought was unethical. But I can also understand why companies would want to actively discourage users who care and it's not always a matter of being malicious. It's [usually] a matter of: - The users affected are in the minority - Regulations are forcing us to do something to be compliant - The ROI of doing it "right" is extremely low - So what can we do to be compliant while getting that tiny minority of users to voluntarily GTFO because genuinely don't want to have to worry about such a small niche market?

yafbum 4y ago
The ROI of doing it right is negative; that's an assumed cost of most regulations. But it's not negative because it's more complex to build it right - it's negative because monetization is that much lower even for that so called "tiny minority" that it will materially affect revenue. In most cases it is much simpler to add a one-click reject-all option than to pretend there are users interested in granular choices that present long lists of toggle controls and put that behind a "Manage cookie settings" button. So the "I" of "ROI of doing it right" is lower than the "I" for doing it in a shady way. I completely understand the companies' motives. But to the OP, I disagree that these UIs are because users don't care. It's probably because companies care a great deal more about their profit. Which they should! That's what companies do and that's even why they exist. But let's not pretend users not caring is the problem.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
What you are describing is 100% malicious. These companies are intentionally ignoring their legal obligations for their own benefit and to their users' detriment. Obviously people making the decision are going to try to come up with a justification to make themselves feel okay about doing it, though.

yafbum 4y ago

The ROI of doing it right is negative; that's an assumed cost of most regulations. But it's not negative because it's more complex to build it right - it's negative because monetization is that much lower even for that so called "tiny minority" that it will materially affect revenue. In most cases it is much simpler to add a one-click reject-all option than to pretend there are users interested in granular choices that present long lists of toggle controls and put that behind a "Manage cookie settings" button. So the "I" of "ROI of doing it right" is lower than the "I" for doing it in a shady way. I completely understand the companies' motives. But to the OP, I disagree that these UIs are because users don't care. It's probably because companies care a great deal more about their profit. Which they should! That's what companies do and that's even why they exist. But let's not pretend users not caring is the problem.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

What you are describing is 100% malicious. These companies are intentionally ignoring their legal obligations for their own benefit and to their users' detriment. Obviously people making the decision are going to try to come up with a justification to make themselves feel okay about doing it, though.