5 ms·
I don't really understand who this post is addressed to. The people that decide to do this just want more money. they won't stop because of some rant by a rando
by miki123211 3y ago
I don't really understand who this post is addressed to. The people that decide to do this just want more money. they won't stop because of some rant by a random stranger on the internet. The programmers who implement this have to do what their boss tells them to, or change jobs, and this isn't something worth changing jobs over. Everybody else already knows that it's a thing, knows why it happens and can't do anything about it.
- burnished 3y agoWhat a bizarre attitude. If you change people's minds they behave differently. Hell even in your example, there is a difference between some programmer who tells themselves this and some person who raises a stink; suddenly doing unethical shit slows you down, costs political capital, and approaches being more trouble than its worth. Fewer shit things will get done because there will be less energy to pursue them. I'm not even suggesting you go out and be some citizen activist - just be normal. You'd have feedback for other kinds of stupid idea.
- ryandrake 3y agoIt's ultimately on developers as the last, ethical line of defense: They're the ones typing in the code at the end of the day. Without them, the bosses couldn't implement these things. Unfortunately, for every good developer who draws a line in the sand, there's Bob, two desks down, who is happy to implement whatever dark pattern boss tells him to. Fuck Bob. What we really need is some kind of Hippocratic Oath for Software, that we all agree to and can collectively use to resist this shit. Not going to happen, but one can dream.
- lamontcg 3y agoOr a Union like the writers/actors guilds.
- _vertigo 3y agoI don't think asking for a sign up is unethical, at least not on the same magnitude as the actual Hippocratic Oath is concerned with. I'd envision the Hippocratic Oath for Software might have something to say about writing software for ICE or despotic regimes but not asking the user to sign up. One is unethical, the other is just annoying.
- kerkeslager 3y agoAt what point does the constant, ever-present, insistent barrage of annoying become significant to you? People are literally committing suicide because of code software developers write. Not for ICE or despotic regimes, but for Facebook. Now I'm not sure a ransom signup pattern reaches that level, but the idea that dark patterns can't reach that level isn't in evidence. While the impact of a piece of software you write on a given individual is usually small, a decision made in software has the power to reach many more people than a decision made by a doctor about a specific patient. Software developers need to take responsibility for their actions and stop blaming their bosses or society for their actions. What we do, does matter.
- dogleash 3y ago> What we really need is some kind of Hippocratic Oath for Software, that we all agree to and can collectively use to resist this shit. Not going to happen, but one can dream. Why spitball about a "Hippocratic Oath" when the ACM code of ethics exists? You could promote the one that does exists instead of dooming that nobody will write or follow such a standard.
- kerkeslager 3y ago> The programmers who implement this have to do what their boss tells them to, or change jobs, and this isn't something worth changing jobs over. I disagree. I've been very intentional about the places I work and have managed to build a successful career while never implementing a dark pattern. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse. Take responsibility for your actions.
- kayodelycaon 3y agoGreat. I have a disability and jobs I can do are difficult to find. The moral high ground is just a little bit harder to hold when your medical care isn't at stake.
- kerkeslager 3y agoWhat makes you think my medical care isn't at stake? That said, I realize there's some privilege implicit in what I said.
- ihateolives 3y agoGreat that it has worked for you. Life is not black and white though. It's easy to have a spine when you have fuck you money in the bank, but not so easy when you have family to feed. Would you starve you kids on principle just because you want to "take responsibility" at work?
- aziaziazi 3y agoIsn’t starving your kids a bit “black and white” ? I reckon you keep on working for that company for a while so you can feed your family. When they have eaten, look for a job that makes you proud.
- kerkeslager 3y agoI'd have no problem taking responsibility for my actions if my actions were "I implemented an unethical dark pattern for my employer because the alternative was letting my kids starve". "I was just following orders" isn't an excuse, but I'd venture "I was feeding my children" IS a pretty good excuse. But that likely isn't the reality of the situation. If you're employed in software in the West it is very unlikely that your children are on the verge of starvation. Much more likely is that you might have to accept a slightly lower standard of living to work at companies that behave ethically, and I'm not particularly sympathetic to that.
- marcosdumay 3y agoI dunno who it was addressed to. But if it changes the mind of people that accept being submitted into refusing to submit, it's a win.