4 ms·

I was cancelling my annual slack premium last month and had to click to acknowledge that some of my members are using the AI features and they will lose access

by dwedge 1y ago

I was cancelling my annual slack premium last month and had to click to acknowledge that some of my members are using the AI features and they will lose access to them. They then offered me a discount and if I refused there was another checkbox where I accepted that I was about to cause disruption for other staff. I was tempted to take the deal until that point, but I'm the only member of the organisation and I absolutely do not use their AI

chaboud 1y ago
That sounds quite a bit like fraud.
- nottorp 1y ago
  Pretty sure it's perfectly legal marketing at least in the US.
  - wongarsu 1y ago
    They are verifiably false statements made for the purpose of monetary gain. I guess the question would hinge on intent: did they just forget to check if anyone is using those features and if there is anyone who would be disrupted, or are they intentionally deceiving users by purposefully not checking?
    - gpvos 1y ago
      Anyone except an American judge can see that this is intentional.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      By the spirit of the law, yes, it likely is fraud. I doubt you could argue it is by the letter of it, though. Normally fraud involves lying to someone to get them to enter into a business relationship with you, not to keep one. Besides, regardless of how many people were using specific features of it, the service is what it is. This wouldn't be unlike you calling your ISP to cancel your subscription and they asking you if you're sure you want to cancel such a great service. If the service factually sucks ass compared to other providers wouldn't make it fraud. All that matters is that it meets the specifications that were sold to you.
      - pests 1y ago
        They’re not telling you its great tho. To continue your analogy, you call your ISP to cancel and they say “are you sure? Two other people are using it as we speak!” and you live alone knowing that’s impossible.
        fluoridation 1y ago
        It wasn't an analogy, it was a comparison. I wasn't trying to produce an analogous situation. My point is that a company lying to you about their service while you're trying to cancel wouldn't necessarily constitute fraud. If the ISP lying to you in the way I said wouldn't be fraud, then "they are verifiably false statements made for the purpose of monetary gain" does not compellingly argue that Slack's lie is fraud. An example of something that would be fraudulent: "stay with us and we'll give you 1000 AI credits", but then if you don't cancel they only give you 100.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - mlyle 1y ago
        > Normally fraud involves lying to someone to get them to enter into a business relationship with you, not to keep one. There is no distinction of the sort in the law. e.g. California: (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
        fluoridation 1y ago
        OK, well, by that definition it's not fraud, then. If I lie to you to convince you to not cancel a service you're already paying for then I'm not depriving you of anything. You're willingly continuing to trade your property for a service. For it to be fraud I would have to trick you into giving me something for nothing.
        1y ago
    - mandevil 1y ago
      Weirdly, there is an exception to fraud if the jury/judge believes that in that situation, no reasonable person would believe what they are saying, it is "mere puffery". This is why some famous, wealthy and powerful people in America today are so hard to catch up on fraud, because they lie so often and so completely that "no one" would really rely on their word. And yet, they are clearly powerful because a lot of people rely on their word. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XC5P9MQG000000/litigation-overview-puffery-tort-defense https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XC5P9MQG00000...
      - mattkrause 1y ago
        “Puffery” isn’t that odd; it’s all about context. We want people to tell the truth, obviously, but we also don’t want to litigate obvious hyperbole. It should be possible to describe something as “the best thing since sliced bread” without bringing in a whole team of UX researchers and bakery historians to calculate how well sliced bread was received and whether Tide Pods (or whatever) are a big enough improvement to meet that bar.
        baobun 1y ago
        > we also don’t want to litigate obvious hyperbole I think we do!
        grayhatter 1y ago
        > It should be possible to describe something as “the best thing since sliced bread” without [...] Possible for you, yes. But I think it's perfectly fine to have a different set of rules for different people based on incentives. You could bring in a whole team of UX researchers, or a promo copy writer with slightly more originality than sliced white bread. Then they could make a claim or comparison that's trivial to verify. Instead of meaningless obvious (to most people) hyperbole. You can't lie to people, and must have some evidence to back up any promotional claim made seems like a reasonable rule for people with a financial incentive to lie or be misleading to the possible detriment of others. But if you're really so offended by such a rule, perhaps the solution is "these claims have not been evaluated by [trade industry group] and this product is not intended to treat or cure any disease, missing feature, required business need or other software bug!" Then you can lie as much as any snake oil salesman.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Barbing 1y ago
Fixed! Disabled those messages wherever org size = 1. Thank you, Slack* (*not actually Slack just annoyed by this scheme, boo)
heavyset_go 1y ago
It's just incredible that billion dollar companies are copying the dark patterns from last decade's shadiest developers.
- portaouflop 1y ago
  On the contrary it is extremely natural that they do this - when the only thing that matters is revenue and morals are just a roadblock this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do
- franga2000 1y ago
  What's the difference? Ransomware gangs aren't evil, they just want to make easy money and don't care about morals. That is also the definition of a for-profit company.
jama211 1y ago
Oh so there’s a history of dark patterns too? Colour me surprised.

by dwedge 1y ago

chaboud 1y ago

That sounds quite a bit like fraud.

nottorp 1y ago
Pretty sure it's perfectly legal marketing at least in the US.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  They are verifiably false statements made for the purpose of monetary gain. I guess the question would hinge on intent: did they just forget to check if anyone is using those features and if there is anyone who would be disrupted, or are they intentionally deceiving users by purposefully not checking?
  - gpvos 1y ago
    Anyone except an American judge can see that this is intentional.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    By the spirit of the law, yes, it likely is fraud. I doubt you could argue it is by the letter of it, though. Normally fraud involves lying to someone to get them to enter into a business relationship with you, not to keep one. Besides, regardless of how many people were using specific features of it, the service is what it is. This wouldn't be unlike you calling your ISP to cancel your subscription and they asking you if you're sure you want to cancel such a great service. If the service factually sucks ass compared to other providers wouldn't make it fraud. All that matters is that it meets the specifications that were sold to you.
    - pests 1y ago
      They’re not telling you its great tho. To continue your analogy, you call your ISP to cancel and they say “are you sure? Two other people are using it as we speak!” and you live alone knowing that’s impossible.
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        It wasn't an analogy, it was a comparison. I wasn't trying to produce an analogous situation. My point is that a company lying to you about their service while you're trying to cancel wouldn't necessarily constitute fraud. If the ISP lying to you in the way I said wouldn't be fraud, then "they are verifiably false statements made for the purpose of monetary gain" does not compellingly argue that Slack's lie is fraud. An example of something that would be fraudulent: "stay with us and we'll give you 1000 AI credits", but then if you don't cancel they only give you 100.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - mlyle 1y ago
      > Normally fraud involves lying to someone to get them to enter into a business relationship with you, not to keep one. There is no distinction of the sort in the law. e.g. California: (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        OK, well, by that definition it's not fraud, then. If I lie to you to convince you to not cancel a service you're already paying for then I'm not depriving you of anything. You're willingly continuing to trade your property for a service. For it to be fraud I would have to trick you into giving me something for nothing.
        1y ago
  - mandevil 1y ago
    Weirdly, there is an exception to fraud if the jury/judge believes that in that situation, no reasonable person would believe what they are saying, it is "mere puffery". This is why some famous, wealthy and powerful people in America today are so hard to catch up on fraud, because they lie so often and so completely that "no one" would really rely on their word. And yet, they are clearly powerful because a lot of people rely on their word. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XC5P9MQG000000/litigation-overview-puffery-tort-defense https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XC5P9MQG00000...
    - mattkrause 1y ago
      “Puffery” isn’t that odd; it’s all about context. We want people to tell the truth, obviously, but we also don’t want to litigate obvious hyperbole. It should be possible to describe something as “the best thing since sliced bread” without bringing in a whole team of UX researchers and bakery historians to calculate how well sliced bread was received and whether Tide Pods (or whatever) are a big enough improvement to meet that bar.
      - baobun 1y ago
        > we also don’t want to litigate obvious hyperbole I think we do!
      - grayhatter 1y ago
        > It should be possible to describe something as “the best thing since sliced bread” without [...] Possible for you, yes. But I think it's perfectly fine to have a different set of rules for different people based on incentives. You could bring in a whole team of UX researchers, or a promo copy writer with slightly more originality than sliced white bread. Then they could make a claim or comparison that's trivial to verify. Instead of meaningless obvious (to most people) hyperbole. You can't lie to people, and must have some evidence to back up any promotional claim made seems like a reasonable rule for people with a financial incentive to lie or be misleading to the possible detriment of others. But if you're really so offended by such a rule, perhaps the solution is "these claims have not been evaluated by [trade industry group] and this product is not intended to treat or cure any disease, missing feature, required business need or other software bug!" Then you can lie as much as any snake oil salesman.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Barbing 1y ago

Fixed! Disabled those messages wherever org size = 1. Thank you, Slack* (*not actually Slack just annoyed by this scheme, boo)

heavyset_go 1y ago

It's just incredible that billion dollar companies are copying the dark patterns from last decade's shadiest developers.

portaouflop 1y ago
On the contrary it is extremely natural that they do this - when the only thing that matters is revenue and morals are just a roadblock this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do
franga2000 1y ago
What's the difference? Ransomware gangs aren't evil, they just want to make easy money and don't care about morals. That is also the definition of a for-profit company.

jama211 1y ago

Oh so there’s a history of dark patterns too? Colour me surprised.