I have a recent example of Bait and Switch strategy used by an airline service.
After the flights got cancelled, they sent an email notifying about cancellations due to covid restrictions. Then provided a link to click to claim refund. Turns out that as soon as you click it, you are provided with a voucher that lasts for a year. Now the airline claims that they are willing to provide either cash refund and vouchers but to get the cash, one is required to call the customer support. But since in my case (and very likely almost everyone) "when one is already issued a voucher, the whole refund process is considered completed."
That is a pure genius yet evil way to make you choose the option that suits them better.
I can imagine how frustrated you are. I flew ~1,000 times and I've encountered about a dozen situations where I was really pissed off at some airline policy.
Two suggestions for you.
One: you might be, like me, a lucky one. Someone with an IT background, not too negatively affected by the Covid-19 crisis. Think about it for a second.
If my guess is wrong, apologies for assuming you fit that profile. Tell me more about how bad it is for you, if you'd like.
Two: you can deal with this issue by simply considering it "lost" money, and move on. Getting your real money back would be a pain in the ass. Right now, the Airline is still capable of giving you hours of rage and stress. Take away that power from them. End the issue in the fastest way possible.
It's a pity that these things happen. In a modern, just society, a company and its executives should be immediately punished for this kind of behavior.
> Take away that power from them. End the issue in the fastest way possible.
So to avoid personal frustration, enable their dark patterns? I don't feel like seesawtron would be the one feeling empowered by giving up and letting them keep the money.
I think that "lucky" people as you call it are in best position to challenge these. They have time and resources and capabilities to complain and push.
Unfortunately I was not so lucky and am at the brink of losing my job.
But yes I have long given up since I am the one who "applied" for refund via voucher by clicking. But definitely something that I didn't see coming, lesson learned.
Wouldn't this be a case for some customer protection agency? IANAL but I would doubt that merely clicking a link without knowing its target is sufficient for establishing a binding contract.
If you've already given up on trying to get the money back, maybe try to book a flight that is likely to be cancelled and hope to get properly refunded. It's a long shot but who knows
There are already quite a few sites which list existing class action suits and how to sign up for them. I'll check them sometimes and see something about false advertising for a granola bar I bought six months ago so I put in my info and then get a check for $0.87 in the mail a year later and have absolutely no idea why.
One of my least favorite dark patterns is "gather information for one (disclosed, usually user-friendly) purpose and use it for another (usually hidden and user-hostile) purpose."
For example, many web sites require email addresses for password recovery (and to reduce malicious, erroneous, or spam account creation) but then turn around and add you to their marketing list. (Brick and mortar businesses use your billing or shipping address to send you advertising junk mail, which is also very annoying, but is limited somewhat by printing and postage costs.)
Facebook wants your phone number for "security" purposes and SMS two-factor authentication, but then misuses it as a personal serial number to easily match you against the databases of its advertising and marketing customers.
> Games such as World of Warcraft, which are considered very addictive, use several of these techniques.
I agree that games like WoW resemble skinner boxes, feature random rewards/simulated gambling, etc., but they don't seem deceptive or fraudulent in the same way that the dark patterns describe. It's more like addiction patterns designed to keep you subscribed? The social aspect also makes it stickier (and more fun) but doesn't seem sinister.
(But I think I would actually enjoy playing WoW, and it seems like it has a largely fixed monthly cost with fewer pay to win elements than gacha games. I do wonder about the time investment that is required to play an MMO though, and whether that is good for players, even if the game is fun to play.)
> Gamers' behavior can be “shaped” by making cycles (progress from one level to the next) slower and slower, designing complex tasks that are difficult to get out of (e.g. World of Warcraft), or conversely dividing them up in small chunks to avoid frustration (e.g., New Super Mario Bros.Wii).
Leveling slowdown is definitely a thing. But games including difficult tasks and breaking up challenges into chapters or chunks doesn't seem malicious. Games that challenge your brain, hand-eye coordination, etc. are often more fun because of that challenge. Fun seems more likely to happen when the difficulty curve is neither too hard nor too easy. Moreover, complex and difficult games are enjoyable to master, but can be overwhelming for the novice, so it makes sense to smooth the learning curve. Mario games (at least their console versions) seem pretty non-malicious to me.
> The terrible truth is that a whole lot of us begged for a Skinner Box we could crawl into, because the real world's system of rewards is so much more slow and cruel than we expected it to be. In that, gaming is no different from other forms of mental escape, from sports fandom to moonshine.
This is my favorite bit from the linked Cracked article. As they point out, addictions (and distractions) serve a rational purpose: they fill a void when you feel disconnected, and help you escape from the cruelty of the real world. Unfortunately they can also harm your physical, mental, and financial health, damage relationships, and consume all of your time and attention.
But, you can actually afford a house in World of Warcraft or Animal Crossing (though I haven't paid off my loan yet.)
The sad thing is that the misdeed is quickly forgotten. Some people may follow the "Hall of Shame" of dark patterns, but there's still no accountability or current status on which sites are still actively using the patterns.
If there was such an overview, people could actively check which companies to avoid, or who to contact and suggest them to change course.
Personally, I'd like to see regulation being imposed on this.
I'm an engineer with an IT background, and I can confidently say that most (if not all) of my friends who do not come from the same background have no idea what dark patterns are. Some might have that natural skepticism that when they see a dark pattern, they recognize it without even knowing. But I would argue that most people still don't, especially the older generations.
False advertising is already a crime. We should also extend this to dark patterns. It would
(i) clean up UIs from the incredibly annoying popups and 'urgency-invoking' messages,
(ii) protect consumers from making irrational decisions and,
(iii) force companies to put resources into growing the business legitimately and organically, rather than putting resources into shady practices
"Disguised Ads": Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram use this to make them look like the normal feed.
"Hidden Costs" & "Sneak into Basket": Services for booking flights use this by adding by default insurance, donations, CO2 neutral costs.
"Roach Motel": Most telecom companies are known to use this to keep you from being able to quit that contract, making the customer service hard to reach or asking you to go through a complex procedure to end your contract.
"Misdirection": E-commerce platforms offering you xx% discount by increasing the original value of the low-grade product.
"Price Comparison Prevention": I find it hard on amazon to search for a product sorted by "Lowest price first" because the search query just throws irrelevent and extremely cheap products. The only solution is to "sort by best" which keeps you from looking at cheaper and sometimes better options.
The futility of holding these platforms accountable is that users have no option if every major player in the market is using these strategies. Though this eventually allows novel platforms and services to emerge that focus on making users free from exactly these common fallacies of the major players. Eg. open source services that are ad-free.
Trying to cancel Amazon Prime is an example of Forced Continuity. IIRC , it shows at least two pages of features you will be missing by canceling. Followed up with an “are you really sure?” prompt with the feature list prominently displayed.
I've had an idea for a browser extension that can actively warn you when you're dealing with a company that uses dark patterns.
For example, say you go to the NYTimes' subscription checkout. It lets you know "Hey, just so you know, they make it very hard to cancel. Here's more info etc."
Sort of like an ad blocker. If enough people install it, whoever is managing its database of dark patterns/warnings has the power to really punish companies for this kind of thing. Of course that also means they have great responsibility.
In the offline world, false and deceptive advertising is illegal, and many deceptive or aggressive sales techniques seem to be frowned upon and limited to certain businesses such as used car dealerships.
On the web, deceptive and aggressive advertising and sales methods seem to be the rule rather than the exception.
I wonder what it would take to improve the situation?
We do need a glossary for dark patterns but it probably needs to be more comprehensive. How do we describe Reddit’s descent into an addiction oriented interface and all the various dark patterns they use to push their app?
The likes of Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and others, smartphones allow us to carry immense social environments in our pockets through every waking moment of our lives. Hence the "dopamine and social reward" one gets interacting in that social environment is what they use to get one hooked up.
One dark pattern I especially hate is the "cookie consent dark pattern" that shows up nearly everywhere since GDPR. Usually the option to accept all cookies is highlighted in a nice color, with large and appealing font. The option to only accept the very necessary cookies is often greyed out an almost unreadable, to trick visitors into thinking this option is disabled.
As as an add-on: On many sites, the grey option is to edit cookie preferences, leading you to an overcomplicated site where you can set all possible details - tricking the user to accept again all cookies in order to save time.
We should have a website that lists and ‘name and shames’ all those who engage in these practices.
People can upvote based on whether or not that is really a dark pattern and how insidious that is.
Many of my friends and family on Facebook don't realize that if they comment on a public group posting then their comment is surfaced to all their friends. I know this because they often reveal political, religious or sexual ideas that they are not in the habit of broadcasting to their friends. "Privacy Zuckering" is an awkward term for this, but it'll do for now.
This is a very good idea because it exposes and categorizes a plethora of dark patterns present not only on web pages, but also on Android devices. But this list is very underdeveloped. Maybe if people could contribute, this would be great.
After the flights got cancelled, they sent an email notifying about cancellations due to covid restrictions. Then provided a link to click to claim refund. Turns out that as soon as you click it, you are provided with a voucher that lasts for a year. Now the airline claims that they are willing to provide either cash refund and vouchers but to get the cash, one is required to call the customer support. But since in my case (and very likely almost everyone) "when one is already issued a voucher, the whole refund process is considered completed."
That is a pure genius yet evil way to make you choose the option that suits them better.