This option for disabling unintended signing in into the browser was promised after there was a major brouhaha on Hacker News. Google added the button as promised... except it doesn't do anything. Very disturbing.

>Stove company: Well, the people are complaining again, but they keep using our stoves, so no reason for us to change.

The real root of the problem is that EULAs and privacy terms aren’t usually clear, and many users are uneducated about how contracts work and what they actually mean. Plus, it’s too easy for users to click through a EULA without knowing that they’re signing their privacy away.

I think people really underestimate how much progress in software has been indirectly funded by these ‘free’ services. And, we all know that few people want to actually ‘pay’ for their internet usage. The indirect subsidies by the adtech industry pay most of our salaries, although many try to deny it.

Almost 30 years since the birth of the web and no sign of this happening yet. Maybe it's time for another approach

Should retailers be forced to accept product returns for customers who decide not to learn arithmetic?

Like, this is literally how everything else works.

If so called “dark patterns” (subjective) are deceptive then you could argue most of commerce is deceptive. If I go to a retail store and am guided toward a product that I don’t necessarily need, is that deception? If a car salesman convinces me to buy his mostly useless extended warranty, is that deception? Where is the line?

Most commerce relies on information asymmetry. People are just picking on the tech industry because they’re highly profitable.

Arithmetic is easy. Wading through 20 pages of legalese so I can share cat pictures isn't.

What? When have you ever been forced to use software X? Even with google, msft, apple, etc. you can always just not use their products. It might be inconvenient for you i.e. you have to buy a real map to figure out how to get from A to B but that's completely different than forced coercion.

For example, not being able to use a smartphone is generally not considered a sensible state for a citizen to be in. Even only being able to choose from one offering, because the other is criminally bad in terms of privacy, is generally not considered sensible.

I'm saying "sensible" here, with which I mean that it's not in the interest of the population as a whole for individual persons to feel impeded like that. Often enough rulings don't come down to right or wrong, legal or not, but rather to this type of sensible.

It's not the Googles and Facebooks of the world which need protection.

I hope they get seriously and royally fucked for doing this shit. Somehow, I suspect they'll weasel themselves in to a slap on the wrist, if that.