Individuals absolutely have rights to do what they want, but only as far as those things don't have a negative impact on others. Pretty much the central kernel of libertarian philosophy, which, as we all know, HN loves.
But dark patterns undermine that kind of personal choice. Think of Facebook hiding the "delete my account" page so that you literally cannot navigate to it through the UI -- you need to have a link to that page. Doesn't that erode my autonomy to decide when I want to delete my account?
Similarly, software like Windows 10, my LinkedIn profile, Firefox settings, macOS/iOS options, and plenty of others that decide to conveniently forget my explicitly chosen opt-out settings when an update comes in. Hiding behind the veil of "it's hard to test every possible option during an update!" to justify pushing folks back to the happy path where those companies get to collect more data.
So I ask you: do dark patterns actually let you make "your own choices"? If I give you a multiple choice test, and you have the option to submit an "other" option on any question, but you have to mail in your text for the "other" option, jump through hoops, and I might forget to actually count your option... do you really have the choice?
> But dark patterns undermine that kind of personal choice. Think of Facebook hiding the "delete my account" page so that you literally cannot navigate to it through the UI -- you need to have a link to that page. Doesn't that erode my autonomy to decide when I want to delete my account?
>Similarly, software like Windows 10, my LinkedIn profile, Firefox settings, macOS/iOS options, and plenty of others that decide to conveniently forget my explicitly chosen opt-out settings when an update comes in. Hiding behind the veil of "it's hard to test every possible option during an update!" to justify pushing folks back to the happy path where those companies get to collect more data.
One response may be: you are not required to use any of the above services, so the choice is perhaps better described as between using (or leaving/disabling) a service with attendant friction, or not at all. If you don't like the service, don't use it.
I completely understand not being happy with a service. There are more than a few that I don't like, so I don't use them.
Now, if a company is going to such extreme measures that the activity can well be described as fraud, that's a different matter. That should be stopped and I think most would agree.
> If I give you a multiple choice test, and you have the option to submit an "other" option on any question, but you have to mail in your text for the "other" option, jump through hoops, and I might forget to actually count your option... do you really have the choice?
I think this may be a false comparison. I'm not required to take your test, so if I don't want to, I'll just throw it out. If I think the potential benefits outweigh the friction imposed by mailing it, then I may do it.
I think I (mostly) agree with you on this, with one caveat: network effects. If my friends and family and local businesses and community groups all use Facebook to organize events, plan socialization, announce things... I'm sort of trapped into using Facebook, because there's no alternate way to get that information! Now, I've done the cost/benefit analysis myself and actually ditched Facebook a couple of years ago. But that gives me even more insight into just how many things I can't do because I don't use Facebook.
Perhaps a better comparison would be a multiple choice test that's a requirement to do something you really want to do -- scuba diving, or renting a bike to ride around a national park, something like that. Sure, it's not essential. But it sounds fun, and you could question the necessity of the test in the first place. But the test needs you to submit your name, birthdate, address, and answer a bunch of personal questions about your interests before you can do the fun thing. At some point, you feel like you're being taken advantage of.
I totally agree with you on the potential abuse of network effects.
However, if the problem is a network effect like you describe, I would say that the it is grounded in monopoly/oligopoly exploitation. I think it is separate from the discussion of advertising and manipulative content.
But dark patterns undermine that kind of personal choice. Think of Facebook hiding the "delete my account" page so that you literally cannot navigate to it through the UI -- you need to have a link to that page. Doesn't that erode my autonomy to decide when I want to delete my account?
Similarly, software like Windows 10, my LinkedIn profile, Firefox settings, macOS/iOS options, and plenty of others that decide to conveniently forget my explicitly chosen opt-out settings when an update comes in. Hiding behind the veil of "it's hard to test every possible option during an update!" to justify pushing folks back to the happy path where those companies get to collect more data.
So I ask you: do dark patterns actually let you make "your own choices"? If I give you a multiple choice test, and you have the option to submit an "other" option on any question, but you have to mail in your text for the "other" option, jump through hoops, and I might forget to actually count your option... do you really have the choice?