4 ms·
It's a little disappointing that Techcrunch doesn't mention any of the controversy / dark pattern-ness of their subscription model, except in passing.
by chadwickthebold 13y ago
It's a little disappointing that Techcrunch doesn't mention any of the controversy / dark pattern-ness of their subscription model, except in passing.
- seiji 13y agoLet's stop calling it a "dark pattern" (as if that's a thing) and call it what it is: knowingly deceiving people into subsequent financial transactions they didn't agree upon. It's morally abhorrent and not very legal.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoWell is it a 'pattern of deception' right? Calling it a 'Decepitcon pattern' would be trademark infringement :-). But I find the phrase 'dark pattern' reasonably resonant with 'design pattern' which was a useful way to organize my thinking about software construction. Because of that 'dark pattern' works for me a way to organize business practices that are deceptive.
- potatolicious 13y agoI find dark pattern doesn't lend it the gravity it deserves - when you say "dark pattern" I think of sneaky ways to sign you up for mailing lists, or sneaky ways to get you to click on more ads. Which is to say, relatively low-damage varieties of evil. It's a whole different ball game when you're using said patterns to directly extract money from people's bank accounts. It's a little like calling a bank robbery "shoplifting". I feel like extremely egregious violations of basic morals and ethics shouldn't be described with the same word we use to describe garden variety sketchy practices.
- busterarm 13y agoThis website is like a Web 2.0 version of Columbia House. It's called "negative option billing" and they've never been stopped from doing it either. Heck, it was only in 2011 that they actually lost a class action suit. Companies are going to continue to do it because they aren't likely to lose. Best we can do is name and shame everyone involved.
- seiji 13y agoThere's a huge range though. There's the "Uncheck this box to not subscribe to our newsletter" versus "We're going to hide wording calling this a subscription opt-in outside of the expected eye tracking range for our audience." We already know "people don't read online" (anywhere?), so adding words outside of the experience itself justifying their actions isn't just a "dark pattern," it's much worse. I think dignifying it with the name "dark pattern" makes it too easy to dismiss as "oh, one of those silly things people do to get more signups" versus "Uh, this iOS app just maxed out my credit card because I let my 5 year old play PAY-FOR-POINTS 2.0 FREE EDITION."
- mcantelon 13y agoDark pattern's less of a mouthful.
- mischanix 13y agoI feel like pointing out that legality is a quantum state.
- photorized 13y agoI would call it a scam.
- jjoonathan 13y agoI agree. Can we call it fraud? To my non-legally-trained eyes it seems to match the definition -- the wording seems to suggest that someone doesn't have to literally lie to commit fraud, and while I doubt the courts are ready to consider dark patterns deceptive and misleading, I think a UX specialist could very reasonably make that jump for the purposes of their own speech. Wikipedia: > In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual law.com: > the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com > A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury. fbi.gov, justice.gov: > [Ponzi Schemes, Fake Lotteries, and Pump&Dump Schemes are typical examples of fraud] I doubt that one of the above could save themselves from the wrath of the justice department by burying a disclaimer in a heap of legalese served up alongside their bait (otherwise they would be doing it en masse). So the question is what fundamentally separates these from smaller-denomination uses of dark patterns. I'd love for someone who knows what they're talking about to weigh in.
- adambenayoun 13y agoActually there was a post from TC about this 1 day ago http://www.techcrunch.com/2013/09/27/not-so-vip/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2013/09/27/not-so-vip/
- 001sky 13y agoJust Fab is a monthly VIP membership program that grants fashion lovers access to celebrity stylists and the hottest shoes and handbags. I love how this is the sales pitch to investors.[1] Meanwhile, the sales pitch to consumers is basically do everything possible to <hide> this. see, eg: Previous HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391 _________ [1] See linked article, in the Crunchbase Section.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cletus 13y agoOn Friday morning (EST) there was a post on HN about just this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455391 It has >1000 upvotes and >450 comments. It was on the front page about 11am and then by noon had disappeared (I stopped looking after about 10 pages). Honestly, I'd still like an answer as to why. I know pages without links degrade quicker but this isn't what happened here. Nothing drops from top of the front page to page 11+ that quickly. This company is a scam and it concerns me greatly that this may have been taken down, which raises the obvious question of why. User jdh (Josh Hannah of Matrix Partners), an investor in JustFab, tried defending the company but copped a (deserved) beating from the HN masses to the deceptive (arguably fraudulent) tactics of the modern-day "shoe of the month" club that is JustFab. As another user mentioned, TechCrunch covered the class auction lawsuit (from 2011?) on the same day.
- eli 13y agoPlease stop looking for conspiracies. Things disappear off the front page all the time. Perhaps it hit the threshold for enough flags, perhaps it just aged out. TechCrunch wrote a whole post on the shady checkout practices on Friday: http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/27/not-so-vip/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/27/not-so-vip/