Looking at this, I am hopeful but not too optimistic.
And The Verge on this very article :)
“Integrity” has different meanings for each group. For the latter, the meaning is likely closer to “bring in enough revenue to keep the publication running.” Applying dark patterns does not conflict with this.
This reminds me of supermarkets in Germany loudly announcing that they would abandon plastic bags to save the environment ... a few weeks before legislation came into effect banning them from selling plastic bags.
Why wait until you're potentially facing fines if you can move slightly ahead and sell it as a voluntary good thing you do for your users/customers?
The solutions to this aren't regulatory, but technical first. Monetary fines to tech giants are mere slaps on the wrist. We, and by that I mean the web developer community, need to make technical solutions that make it impossible for companies to infringe users' rights. I guess we should first start by defining what those should be on the web. Those solutions then need to be presented to lawmakers and companies forced to adopt them. This is not rocket science; there are already solutions to these problems that just aren't adopted (e.g. the {ab,un}used Do Not Track header).
All this "behave this way or else" regulation is just reactive, and usually takes years to even pass into law, by which point tech giants are way ahead of it anyway.
Really? Which dark pattern would bever be created if eu didn't exist?
"We, and by that I mean the web developer community, need to make technical solutions that make it impossible for companies to infringe users' rights. I guess we should first start by defining what those should be"
So, in this process, most of the population will get told what their rights are?
Since you complain that the regupation is slow, any ETA when the technofix will be ready?
> Which dark pattern
The cookie consent forms that were a direct response to EU laws.
> most of the population will get told what their rights are?
Internet users need to be a) educated about the value of the data they produce (and ideally compensated for it[1]), and b) be provided with tools that safeguard this data and give them absolute control over it. So, yes.
The web should be user friendly, not hostile and scammy at every turn. It should be impossible for companies to abuse user data, and regulations are clearly too slow and ineffective.
> any ETA when the technofix will be ready?
Some already exist, and others can be built. The incentives are just not there, as tech giants rule the web and law makers are both influenced by and playing catch up to their schemes.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/sh...
No. The law is not the reason. Companies that knowingly and willingly break it are.
Those annoying popups? The vast majority of them are illegal under GDPR, which parasites like IAB are very well aware of: https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europe...
Edit: changed article URL
If they're now illegal, that's on the EU for making them vague or not strict enough.
But my point is that fighting this with laws is:
- too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users. And by the time laws do come to pass, tech companies have grown in power and already have alternatives to keep growing. Governments are constantly playing catch up, which was a problem even with Big Tobacco/Pharma, but the speed of innovation of Big Tech is unparalleled.
- too ineffective, as breaking these laws is too slow/difficult to prosecute, and even when companies are fined, it's mostly symbolic to even matter. I.e. to them it's just the cost of doing business.
> were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1]
Your link clearly states: "Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies".
For everything else you need to ask for consent with "No"/"Reject" being clearly labeled and being the default option.
Yes, it's that easy.
> too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users.
So, what eactly is your proposal except "law is bad"? How do you propose law should work to minimize harm?
To be clear: I think that EU is too slow and too lenient when prosecuting things illegal under GDPR, and that they should pick up the pace. However, "omg this law makes the web bad" is in itself is a very bad take. Because it takes responsiility from those who are actually responsible for making the web bad. They are now exposed... but managed to persuade people that it's not their behaviour that is blatantly evil, but that "the law exposing them is bad".
What needs to happen is for privacy-minded tech people to propose and lobby solutions to governments that make it impossible for companies to violate these rights in the first place, and then governments making it a law for this technology to be used by all companies. E.g. the DNT header could've been one such solution, but the fact it was never made part of a law is what led to it being abused for ironically tracking itself, and now abandoned altogether.
We're in this mess because governments fundamentally don't understand technology and how to police it. Either that, or they're willfully complacent with the status quo because it benefits them as much as the corporations.
Do you realize that all laws happen after something happens? Even your proposed solution of tech people coming up with something would also happen after the fact?
> What needs to happen is for privacy-minded tech people to propose and lobby solutions to governments that make it impossible for companies to violate these rights in the first place
Ah yes, the magical technical solution that is impossible to violate.
Good thing that you mentioned DNT. Do you know that DNT ended up being used for browser fingerprinting and hence tracking?
Had DNT been codified into law, you'd be complaining on HN that the law is bad and governments don't understand technology.
> Either that, or they're willfully complacent with the status quo because it benefits them as much as the corporations.
wat. GDPR is literally aimed against the status quo. I wish it was more rigorously enforced, of course.
Also, it doesn't apply just to the web. It asserts right to privacy as a fundamental right.
My recommendation:
1. Install "I don't care about cookies"
2. Install "Temporary containers"
This requires that you use special containers for things you do wish to have cookies for such as HN for the login. Other than that, you can safely click accept for all websites, since it won't persist anyways.
And, no, I can't be bothered to review their source code if it's available, or to trust that I'm actually running said code, that it won't become malicious eventually or bother with building it myself. Unless it's run on demand and for a single purpose, I suggest avoiding extensions altogether.
I understand the criticism though - increased attack surface. But the Web is pretty much a lost cause anyways.
https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....
Or the auto renewing subscriptions that either cancel your service immediately the second you turn off auto renew, even if you paid for the current time allotment, or they just prevent or ignore your request to not renew.
I feel like reverse charging didn’t exist back then.
There’s also entitled devs that say your email domain or VOIP number isn’t good enough when signing up for their service. There’s no reason for anybody to use an email from their perfect in test whitelist of gmail or Microsoft domains… And why would anybody ever have a voip number unless they were a terrorist?
“Hey we couldn’t process your card due to a temporary error so we went ahead and cancelled your $59 for AllTheThings plan you had for the last 10 years as a loyal customer. We’re very much not at all sorry that plan isn’t available any more. Now AllTheThings costs $129, but don’t worry, just click to reactivate, we’ll try your card again.” … “AllTheThings processed successfully for $129, thank you for your custom.”
“Why do you want to cancel?” “I’m moving.” “Would you like us to transfer service to your new address?” “No.” “OK”
So you click the cancel button.
Only you find out you’ve cancelled Prime.
Fwiw I don't use Apple Pay either. There's a lot of things I don't use, for various reasons, and "you should just give in and use it" isn't the right response.
At no time has the term ‘dark pattern’ ever been necessarily dependent on getting you to pay money.
Your argument is that I sound stupid, so I must be wrong?
There’s no button.
https://www.cultofmac.com/538999/apple-under-fire-apple-pay-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-insists-iphone-users-enro...
My other peeve is when streaming apps put a button in the bottom-right of an ad, same size and style as the ‘skip’ button one reflexively clicks. Except it turns out to be an ‘engage even moar’ button.
I don’t disagree regards dark patterns, your example just felt a bit irrelevant to the specific topic being discussed (Amazon pushing a paid for product / cancelling a paid subscription).
People who think that money is the only thing that other people want are doomed to be repeatedly exploited by people who understand that there are more forms of exploitation than directly monetary.
I had a bit of a nightmare where one of the credit reporting agencies was convinced my residential address was inside my bank. Their online system referred me to their phone system or sending them mail. Their phone system referred me to their online system or sending them mail. I sent them mail 3 times and got no reply. An online cheat guide for getting to an actual human through their phone system didn't work, and I eventually just started hitting random keys in their phone system and got to a human who was able to sort it out.
You can't even get a secured credit card (backed by a cash deposit) without a credit check (I looked into it), which is going to fail if your residential address is wrong.
Opening a financial account that might misreport something to a credit agency shouldn't be taken lightly.
And please don't ad hominem attack people you're responding to.
You feel you profit from facebook tracking as well?
Regardless, these dark patterns are truly disgusting and how some can defend them so mindlessly just because they apparently found a use for a product is quite disturbing.
> I’m still struggling to see the relevance though, trying to get me to buy things is very different from trying to get me to use a feature you profit from (in my opinion).
Vaguely worded laws can also lead conservative corporate counsels to make decisions like geoblocking all of the EU
#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png){kind=link}
i.e. if signup is "email and credit card number" then you're going to be hard pressed to explain why a similar option to cancel does not exist and isn't accessible in as many clicks, with equivalent screen real-estate usage.
So you argue that to cancel a subscription, you should have to provide your credit card number again. If a check on the credit card fails for some obscure reason, you cannot cancel your subscription.
This is what "subscribe is as easy as unsubscribe" also means.
How do you get economic and business growth (things which are good for people - jobs and employment) without marketing and advertising?
Oh and firewall or defender that puts a big !! Everywhere so it seems that my system will explode anytime
Are they aware that people use it for working?
This is an excellent addition.