3 ms·
I think parents point is: It’s only because of Ryan Airs business model of upselling via dark patterns that they care. And because of these dark patterns, par
by wodenokoto 2y ago
I think parents point is:
It’s only because of Ryan Airs business model of upselling via dark patterns that they care.
And because of these dark patterns, parent as a consumer is willing to pay someone else to go through the booking process and avoid the dark pattern on their behalf.
And the point is good: if company A is annoying to interact with, why can’t you pay company B to do it for you?
- SkyBelow 2y agoIsn't the issue that you can do that, but Company A can also add in a clause that you can only do business with us (or with this specific product/website/etc. we offer) if you agree to be buying the tickets for yourself and not for someone else. In which case, if Company B says they are, they are lying. I think one interesting question from this is what happens when you put an AI in there instead. If Company B sells an AI that Person can use to interact with Company A, at what point does it count as Person's interaction and at what point does it count as Company A's interaction. Obviously Person is allowed to use technology to interact on behalf of them. They are using Chrome, or IE, or Firefox, etc. This doesn't count as Google/Microsoft/Mozilla interacting with Company A. So on a continuum (likely multi dimensional) from internet browsers to what Booking.com did in this case, including AI somewhere in the continuum space, where is the legal limit?