I'm not sure this is really "dark pattern" – it's a full screen modal, sure, but it's not like the close button is hidden or anything (and you can close with ESC as others mentioned).
It’s not “hidden” but the modal pops up after scrolling far enough down that you’re absorbed in the content, the “continue reading” is not styled as a button, and is accompanied by a chevron to the right which implies navigation away from the current content (I want to scroll down, not go right), which I think pushes it over the edge into dark pattern territory.
It's arguably in the user's interest if you look at the blogger and reader as participants in an ecosystem.
The current state of the ecosystem is such that getting someone to subscribe is extremely important for ongoing engagement, and ongoing engagement is often the prerequisite for continued writing.
If you're a reader interested in the kind of content the author is writing, and if you want to find more of this kind of content going forward, an easily escapable call to action is in the user's interest.
Is it annoying? Also yes. But in a world where everyone runs an ad blocker and social aggregators are fragmenting, it's better than a fully erected paywall, and better than nothing at all.
> It's arguably in the user's interest if you look at the blogger and reader as participants in an ecosystem.
I don't want to be part of the ecosystem. I want to read the article, leave, and never come back. It's not in this user's best interest to be bothered by a popup.
In fact, I believe it's actually the best interests of the author that's being looked after, not the users or readers, by using a modal popup to interrupt somebody's reading. It's as rude as walking up to someone while they're reading a book and waving your hands between their eyes and the book they're reading to get their attention if you noticed they were reading a book you personally wrote in an effort to sell them more books or to ask them for their email so you can send them special offers.
I suppose I could stop going to the park where authors think this is acceptable to do and limit my reading to parks where "ecosystem" authors avoid, but eventually other people start using their annoying tactics and you can't escape it no matter where you go.
We're part of that ecosystem whether we want to be or not.
As the beneficiaries of free content, it seems like a complete non-issue to just say "no thanks" when alternatives include: no content, or fully paywalled content. If you're just expecting free content that caters to you in every way possible way, I'm curious how this is sustainable for any author, or why authors should be expected to work this way.
> it's actually the best interests of the author that's being looked after, not the users or readers
There are no users/readers if there is no content. There is no content if there are no engaged users/readers. My point is that actively building an audience (good for the author) is actively good for the reader, because it makes continuing to write a viable thing for the author to spend their time on.
If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative, but you're now a double beneficiary: of the author, and of the readers who do return.
> It's as rude as walking up to someone while they're reading a book...
I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the moment you pay for the blog post you'd have more standing to complain about the conditions surrounding its presentation.
And I'm also not saying the state of the ecosystem is good, or that I like it. I'm also not saying that the ecosystem can't or shouldn't change. But I think it's unreasonable to expect writers not to have self interests, while taking a stance that is wholly self interested.
> If you're just expecting free content that caters to you in every way possible way, I'm curious how this is sustainable for any author, or why authors should be expected to work this way.
speaking for myself, i mostly look for content that the author wanted to produce (just by/for himself). not for me or any engagement metrics.
> There is no content if there are no engaged users/readers.
this is plainly false
> If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative
not only is it my prerogative, it's the norm.
> Perhaps the moment you pay for the blog post you'd have more standing to complain about the conditions surrounding its presentation.
thou criticism is still allowed for the unwashed masses, not only because it's popular.
This really depends on the blog. If it's a person who is making their living off of a newsletter, then readers = content.
I'm not saying that there are no blogs without readers, and somewhat awkwardly was trying to make the point that an author taking steps to create an engaged audience may be doing so as a condition of continuing to write. This is obviously not universal. My personal blog has not many readers. I still write. I don't ask them to subscribe.
>> If you're just coming for a single article and you'll never return again, that's understandable and your prerogative
> not only is it my prerogative, it's the norm.
This quote cuts out the only point of that sentence: even if someone is visiting a blog with the sole purpose of leaving and never returning, there is no standing to be upset when the author providing them with content at no cost simply asks if they'd like to subscribe. This violates basic notions of reciprocity and seems rather...childish, frankly.
This is not to imply that there's any expectation that someone should subscribe. I rarely do.
I agree. But there are a few things which I think make this a dark pattern: the modal pops up after scrolling far enough down that you’re absorbed in the content, the “continue reading” is not styled as a button, and is accompanied by a chevron to the right which implies navigation away from the current content (I want to scroll down, not go right).
