3 ms·

Unless the playing field between the companies are on the same level (reads: dark patters are deemed illegal, and I think it should be!), or you are in some sor

by kredd 3y ago

Unless the playing field between the companies are on the same level (reads: dark patters are deemed illegal, and I think it should be!), or you are in some sort of monopolistic industry, to my understanding you will lose to your competitors. I've never been in a situation to implement such patterns, but play these mental gymnastics to give the implementor some benefit of the doubt.

Nifty3929 3y ago
This is absolutely it! In the marketplace, only results matter and companies that deliver them displace those that don’t. In this case, result mean profit or at least conversions. The same was true for banks who were over extended on risky loans in the late aughts. If you didn’t do that, you were criticized by analysts and Wall Street for being too conservative, and anyway look how much these other banks are making. And by the government: you’re being too stingy with loans to the buyers who need them most.
- falcolas 3y ago
  > In the marketplace, only results matter and companies that deliver them displace those that don’t. In this case, result mean profit or at least conversions. Were this the unalterable truth, mom and pop shops wouldn't exist. Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist. But they all do. Which means there's more to the formula; and that formula can include things like respecting their users.
  - gochi 3y ago
    All 3 structures you've noted participate in immoral behaviors, some of them far more grave in impact than psychological trickery. Do you believe businesses/people out there have the intention to disrespect their users? Most often, that's not the case. Hence, we need regulations to combat good intentions gone awry (and most certainly bad intentions).
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > Which means there's more to the formula; Yes: the market isn't 100% instant and efficient, so here and there, the kind of companies you describe can survive, for a while. Some are in the process of being outcompeted. Others survive in the cracks, not worth even considering to compete with, the same way you're not competing for food with ants. And some just pretend to be nice. Point being, GP's statement is true in general - it's the overall behavior dictated by the economic system. "Reality has surprising amount of detail", so there are always exceptions to any rule or pattern, but they don't invalidate the rule: those exceptions survive because they're rare - they won't grow in amount to replace the regular case.
  - Nifty3929 3y ago
    >> mom and pop shops wouldn't exist Why not? Mom and pop shops can (and often are) be more profitable than any other business that would serve that market. >> Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Why not? Investing in your own business can be very profitable if you have good ways to expand your business. >> Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist. Why not? Public companies can't pay workers less than those workers demand.
falcolas 3y ago
> but play these mental gymnastics to give the implementor some benefit of the doubt. No. Using psychological tricks to get people to act against their best interests is immoral. “But if I don’t implement it, someone else will.” That’s merely a justification to make you sleep easier at night. Let that someone else do it. And if you lose your job over not implementing a dark pattern, was it a job worth having? If they’re willing to let you go for refusing to a task you view as immoral, they aren’t worth your loyalty in the first place.
- kredd 3y ago
  It is immoral for you and I, but most of engineers and product managers don’t think so. “It’s a feature that’s been implemented by everyone else and it works” would be the argument during its proposal. If the users really opposed to it they would vote with their browser by closing the tab (like I do). It’s like calling “heavy JS websites” as a burden on user, when most of the users, time upon time, showed how they don’t care. “Let your employer fire you” argument also doesn’t sit well with me. Like this is not some hardcore feature that will be tasked out to some principal engineer with decades of experience that can find a job easily. Some recent grad will be just labeled as “not a team player” and sidelined. If we want a fair game, we should demote these kind of features (and stuff like 20 clicks to cancel your subscription) in one way or another.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > And if you lose your job over not implementing a dark pattern, was it a job worth having? Not everyone can afford to lose their job over their principles. It's a sad state of affairs, definitely. This is what we get for allowing employers to have so much power over us.
kelnos 3y ago
What happened to the idea of winning because you make a superior product? Why is it necessary to play dirty tricks on your users to win? If a market is that saturated, and product so trivial to build that it's hard to differentiate, maybe don't participate in that market?

by kredd 3y ago

Nifty3929 3y ago

This is absolutely it! In the marketplace, only results matter and companies that deliver them displace those that don’t. In this case, result mean profit or at least conversions. The same was true for banks who were over extended on risky loans in the late aughts. If you didn’t do that, you were criticized by analysts and Wall Street for being too conservative, and anyway look how much these other banks are making. And by the government: you’re being too stingy with loans to the buyers who need them most.

falcolas 3y ago
> In the marketplace, only results matter and companies that deliver them displace those that don’t. In this case, result mean profit or at least conversions. Were this the unalterable truth, mom and pop shops wouldn't exist. Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist. But they all do. Which means there's more to the formula; and that formula can include things like respecting their users.
- gochi 3y ago
  All 3 structures you've noted participate in immoral behaviors, some of them far more grave in impact than psychological trickery. Do you believe businesses/people out there have the intention to disrespect their users? Most often, that's not the case. Hence, we need regulations to combat good intentions gone awry (and most certainly bad intentions).
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Which means there's more to the formula; Yes: the market isn't 100% instant and efficient, so here and there, the kind of companies you describe can survive, for a while. Some are in the process of being outcompeted. Others survive in the cracks, not worth even considering to compete with, the same way you're not competing for food with ants. And some just pretend to be nice. Point being, GP's statement is true in general - it's the overall behavior dictated by the economic system. "Reality has surprising amount of detail", so there are always exceptions to any rule or pattern, but they don't invalidate the rule: those exceptions survive because they're rare - they won't grow in amount to replace the regular case.
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  >> mom and pop shops wouldn't exist Why not? Mom and pop shops can (and often are) be more profitable than any other business that would serve that market. >> Companies who invest profits back into themselves would not exist. Why not? Investing in your own business can be very profitable if you have good ways to expand your business. >> Public companies who pay living wages wouldn't exist. Why not? Public companies can't pay workers less than those workers demand.

falcolas 3y ago

> but play these mental gymnastics to give the implementor some benefit of the doubt. No. Using psychological tricks to get people to act against their best interests is immoral. “But if I don’t implement it, someone else will.” That’s merely a justification to make you sleep easier at night. Let that someone else do it. And if you lose your job over not implementing a dark pattern, was it a job worth having? If they’re willing to let you go for refusing to a task you view as immoral, they aren’t worth your loyalty in the first place.

kredd 3y ago
It is immoral for you and I, but most of engineers and product managers don’t think so. “It’s a feature that’s been implemented by everyone else and it works” would be the argument during its proposal. If the users really opposed to it they would vote with their browser by closing the tab (like I do). It’s like calling “heavy JS websites” as a burden on user, when most of the users, time upon time, showed how they don’t care. “Let your employer fire you” argument also doesn’t sit well with me. Like this is not some hardcore feature that will be tasked out to some principal engineer with decades of experience that can find a job easily. Some recent grad will be just labeled as “not a team player” and sidelined. If we want a fair game, we should demote these kind of features (and stuff like 20 clicks to cancel your subscription) in one way or another.
kelnos 3y ago
> And if you lose your job over not implementing a dark pattern, was it a job worth having? Not everyone can afford to lose their job over their principles. It's a sad state of affairs, definitely. This is what we get for allowing employers to have so much power over us.

kelnos 3y ago

What happened to the idea of winning because you make a superior product? Why is it necessary to play dirty tricks on your users to win? If a market is that saturated, and product so trivial to build that it's hard to differentiate, maybe don't participate in that market?