Also, the notion that dark UI patterns are exploitative of teenagers but acceptable for adults is ridiculous. Plenty of adults are just as (if not more-so) vulnerable to these things than kids.
The same holds true for e.g. smoking. The idea is to prevent exposure to the still developing brain (psuedo-arbitrarily defined as under 18), and that exposure after this age is purely an informed descision by a consenting adult. Should legislation require that __all__ exploitative mechanisms be banned forever?
I don’t think that any business that makes money by taking advantage of people’s foolishness or stupidity has any particular moral right to be free from regulation. Caveat emptor and all that, but if you cause enough damage to enough people, it stops being an individual’s problem and starts being society’s problem. We’re 100% there with social media.
> I don’t think that any business that makes money by taking advantage of people’s foolishness or stupidity
I think this is a touch unfair to people at large. The common end user isn't keen enough to recognize dark patterns, that's true, but that's akin to saying that the average car buyer should be able to spot flaws in a vehicle that could cause them harm. We don't expect that from people; Car companies are mandated to only sell vehicles that meet safety requirements. And even then, it's generally accepted that when you're buying a used vehicle, you take it to a mechanic you trust to make sure it's well cared for and operational. Same as when you buy a home; you're expected to have it inspected.
It's also unfair, I think, to put people down as foolish or stupid for not immediately recognizing things that are psychological tricks companies use in marketing, to steer users towards the options they want the users to choose. I mean caveat emptor indeed, but to say that, for example fast food marketers holding PHD's in psychological studies, working day in and out to get people to be hungry anytime they see a McDonalds logo are on an even playing field with Joe Consumer is a laughable assertion on it's face.
In the days of yore, marketing was just trying to sell someone something but it's become much more insidious since those innocent times. Now companies use dark patterns in their applications, purposely bury privacy and security options under layers of confusing UI, use all manor of colors and fonts shown to steer people's attention to the goal they want, on and on. This is why I find it so unethical, it feels a hell of a lot less like marketing and lot more like "hacking" a person's brain to get into their wallet.
tl:dr; Joe Consumer is playing checkers, and marketing scientists are playing 3D chess. He doesn't stand a chance and everyone just keeps acting like that's okay.
Not a parent poster, but I think main point still holds. Maybe I would state it differently.
Even if you say 'taking advantage of limited cognitive ability of people' which is true, because everyone is busy, having life problems and is bombarded with all that crap. It makes people stupid, and that is not something to say about particular person.
So second part is about making damage while taking advantage of that created stupidity, which is the same as thieves taking advantage of someone after 12 hour trip. People get tired and do stupid things like not watching their luggage. That is the same as taking advantage of online tiredness, it is also foolishness.
Marketing with McDonalds does not make people hungry, that is of course not the way it works. But when people are hungry and see McDonalds logo, they don't think about alternatives but just go for that option. I fell for that multiple times, when I am tired, I am not going to search for some small restaurant that can have better food. It can turn out that there is one, but food is total crap, so I am not taking chances but going for McD. Getting me tired and hungry to pay them money is taking advantage of my temporary stupidity and foolishness. They have scale and are everywhere so it might look innocent.
> Even if you say 'taking advantage of limited cognitive ability of people' which is true, because everyone is busy, having life problems and is bombarded with all that crap. It makes people stupid, and that is not something to say about particular person.
That I'd agree with, that it makes people stupid. That's better.
> Marketing with McDonalds does not make people hungry
But it does. The color red has been linked many times to feelings of hunger, most likely because our brains link it to both the color of fresh berries and the color of slaughtered meat. That's why nearly every fast food chain uses a significant amount of red in their packaging: McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Topper's Pizza, Wendy's, Hardees, Carls' Jr., the list is nearly infinite. It's not a coincidence.
And that's the relatively low-tech tactics, not even going into how the engineer the taste of the food to be just right, how the burgers in the ads look absolutely nothing like the product you receive, all the way up to the fact that fast food is laden with sugar unnecessarily to make it literally addictive, since the brain responds to sugar in a very similar way to cocaine.
Again, this stuff exists on a very large spectrum from stuff that's innocuous but very effective, all the way to the stuff that was cooked up in laboratories by extremely smart people to manipulate the general populace into buying their products.
That's not a fair comparison because some people want to smoke. No one wants to be the victim of dark UI patterns. No one wants "share all my data by default please." No one wants to click on a deceptive ad that looks like the download button.
They want to smoke, but most do not want cancer, emphysema or to have there house burn down because there adulterated cigarette has been manufactured knowingly in a way that increases those risks.
Many users "want" the "streak" features as a way to signalling their commitment to their social relationship with another individual, which is the feature this article is about.
Guess HN needs to banned then. Their news feed is designed to exploit my need for novelty and it works. I'm here far more than I should be. I guess I should expect the government to regulate HN to save me from it's exploitative patterns
I don't see it to be honest. The website is plain and simple, downvotes are capped, the scores are not visible. I spent significantly less time here than on other forms of social media, and I never feel glued to the website.
What part of the HN design appears to you exploitative? It's much more like an old school web forum than a gamified social website.
This will only be a temporary issue which will disappear with the generation which will resist the most. Most behavioural changes and changes to the norm just need to wait until the first generation dies out and to all subsequent generations this will be the only norm they ever knew. A great example is smoking in public places in Europe. The people who think this restricts their freedom is slowly disappearing. Most young people and new generations find it normal that smoking in public places is prohibited and they would resist if someone was to try to change that now.
It definitely sounds odd to my younger colleagues when I explain what it was like when people smoked in pubs by default.
There may be a difference here in that lots of people disliked smoking/smokers/their clothes smelling after going to a pub, perhaps more than there are who dislike the concept of facebook likes manipulating their behaviour more than they like the rewards that likes bring them.
The only sane arguments against banning tobacco entirely are related to organized crime. I assert that there is no risk of cartels re-implementing the dark patterns of facebook.
This libertarian rhetorical meme of reducing every instance of proposed regulation to ineffectual drug wars needs to die.
