[HN Gopher] Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K... ___________________________________________________________________ Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites (2019) Author : pseudolus Score : 264 points Date : 2021-01-30 12:28 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu) | aww_dang wrote: | Some of the things listed are sales techniques I expect from a | business. If businesses want to set themselves apart by being | more straightforward, that's another way to sell. | | I'm left wondering if the authors take advertisements at face | value as well? | | "After extensive research, we found that the stain could be | removed, but not as easily as shown in the TV advert. As | academics, we conclude that this is dark and deceptive." | 6chars wrote: | I believe this kind of thing is a big contributor to Amazon's | hegemony in online shopping. I'm reluctant to order from other | sites because there's a whole new set of dark patterns I may fall | victim to. At least I'm familiar enough with Amazon to know I'm | not getting charged for things I didn't intend to order, the low | stock warnings are somewhat legitimate, etc. I'm not saying | Amazon doesn't have its own issues, but at least it's a known | quantity. | | If it weren't for Amazon's dominance, other sites would be able | to compete without resorting to these dark patterns, so this is a | self-perpetuating cycle: people only shop on Amazon -> the only | other sites that can survive are the ones that engage in | deception -> trust in non-Amazon shopping sites decreases -> | people only shop on Amazon -> ... | | I don't mean to cast these scammy shopping websites as victims. | My concern is more about how the legitimate sites that could | exist don't because they're crowded out by Amazon (and other big | players like Walmart) and the scammy shopping sites this article | discusses. | ieeamo wrote: | Amazon _is_ one of the scammy shopping sites this articles | discusses - it's listed in the dataset. | | I'd wager that many of the dark patterns persist because Amazon | use them, making their justification inside smaller companies | easier. | tyingq wrote: | One example is their "subscriptions" to products. It's very | easy to accidentally order a recurring subscription to a | shipped physical product, rather than just a one-time | purchase. | jimmaswell wrote: | I just looked and subscriptions are very clearly labeled | every step of the way, not even an attempt to be tricky | that I can see. | tyingq wrote: | It's possible they've changed it since I last | accidentally did that, or perhaps I'm just dense :) | notdang wrote: | I usually take advantage of this to lower the price by 10% | and then cancel the subscription. | 6chars wrote: | I'm not saying they aren't. What I'm trying to get across is | that people are more used to and, therefore, inured to their | dark patterns. There's a learning curve for navigating any | website's dark patterns, so I'm more comfortable using a site | whose dark patterns I believe I can recognize and avoid than | one I haven't used before and am consequently more likely to | be victimized by. | | I'm definitely overestimating my own ability to avoid | Amazon's scammy tactics. I, like most people, am reluctant to | admit that I'm vulnerable to manipulation by things like | these dark patterns (and ads, PR, etc.). But since I'm | talking about my subjective feelings towards the websites, I | think how good I _feel_ I am is relevant. | | I totally agree with everything you've said, but just want to | clarify my initial comment. I'm not trying to let Amazon off | the hook, though they are less problematic than almost all of | the other examples in the article. | marcinzm wrote: | It's listed ONCE in the dataset due to a product option | defaulting to the most expensive version. A very minor dark | pattern I'd argue. | ieeamo wrote: | Why the downvote? Amazon has consistently been flagged for | excessive use of Dark patterns, e.g. [1]. | | [1] https://www.uxukawards.com/best-dark-ux/ | iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: | (My experience is with amazon.ca) Amazon is filled with the | kinds of deception that the article discusses. | | I dont have prime and the whole UI is set up to trick me into | getting prime. | | I always buy enough to get free shipping (which they show | with a big banner), but it always defaults to paid shipping, | that often needs to be removed item by item. | | More often than not, books I search for default to kindle, | and I have actually been tricked into buying a kindle version | before. | | They hide the fact that you are buying from a reseller as | much as they can. | | I could go on, but the point is I agree with you entirely. | judge2020 wrote: | > that often needs to be removed item by item. | | In general you just need to change it for each shipment - | if multiple items are grouped together [because they're all | at the same warehouse) then changing one shipment will | change the shipping speed of all items within it. They | probably should be defaulting to free shipping when it's | available, though. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | They don't always default to the cheapest option. This | happens more often when they're trying to steer you into | selecting a Prime subscription. | morsch wrote: | _They hide the fact that you are buying from a reseller as | much as they can._ | | I mean, it says Sold by X and Fulfilled by Amazon right | under the add to basket/buy buttons. It's repeated on the | order summary. I'm aware people keep missing this, but I | don't really get it. | throwawayboise wrote: | I'd wager that a lot of people don't know what that | means, as opposed to: | | You are buying this from X. Amazon is only processing the | payment. | | And there's probably a way to word that even more | clearly... | marcinzm wrote: | As of 2012 Amazon sells more Kindle books than physical | books in the UK. I suspect that hasn't changed since then. | So I'd argue defaulting to kindle is the right product | decision as it's the option the majority of users want. | | Amazon Prime on the other hand is definitely a dark | pattern. | iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: | Amazon has 15 years of shopping history from me that | includes multiple physical books each month and 0 kindle | purchases. Its possible they don't consider that and | default to kindle for everyone, but they at least have | the info to know that kindle versions are not what I'm | after. | _jal wrote: | Exactly so. | | Amazon is incredibly good at converting consumer | surveillance data in to money. They could easily default | this (and many other things) to sensible per-user values. | Given their competence and attention to detail, the | reasonable guess here is that playing dumb on this | default pays better than doing right by the user. | devlopr wrote: | Could Amazon be selling more kindle ebooks because of the | policy that selects it as a default? | | At this point you couldn't switch back. | yabudemada wrote: | I think it's the convenience for both buyers and sellers. | If readers want the book "now" they get the kindle | version; if they want it later they get the physical | copy. However, Kindle in general is a dark pattern: it | forces users to be locked into their product ecosystem. | [deleted] | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | They sell more e-books because the publishing industry | colluded to jack up the price of paperbacks so that $10 | e-books look like a bargain. I'm not paying $15 for a | physical book that would have been $5 15 years ago. Their | production overhead has been dramatically lowered by | digital distribution and I'm expected to pay _more_? | Nextgrid wrote: | > other sites would be able to compete without resorting to | these dark patterns | | Is there any evidence that e-commerce sites were any less | scummy before Amazon started competing? | 6chars wrote: | I don't have any evidence to back this up, but in my | recollection, that is the case. But it's hard to even compare | e-commerce now to back before Amazon, when the web was much | more niche and a lot of dark patterns weren't even | technically possible yet. | | It would be interesting to see where e-commerce would be | today if a company as dominant as Amazon never came about. My | hypothesis is that people would have more trust in a random | shopping site they click on when Googling a product they want | to buy, but it's impossible to test that. | NicoJuicy wrote: | > At least I'm familiar enough with Amazon to know I'm not | getting charged for things I didn't intend to order | | Well, unsubscribing Amazon videos is a dark pattern too. Not as | bad as Adobe, but still. | hirundo wrote: | Amazon earned a lot of loyalty from me with a light pattern. An | Xbox they shipped me was stolen off of my porch and they | replaced it with no questions. I've purchased other things from | random outfits, had them charge the card and then just ghost | me. If I could buy anywhere with the same confidence I have in | Amazon then Amazon's hold on me would be a lot weaker. | judge2020 wrote: | Another leg up with Amazon is their free returns. I purchased | over $200 worth of product from corsair.com with free | shipping, but one item was defective (RGB mousepad regularly | kills my entire USB stack every few hours - it's either | defective or incompatible with my motherboard) and the cost | to return it from Georgia -> California via USPS for | RMA/refund is nearly a third of the item's price since | Corsair doesn't pay for return shipping. | m463 wrote: | On the other hand, aren't they legally obligated to do so? | jjcon wrote: | > a light pattern | | These terms are getting a bit out of hand XD | scollet wrote: | > when developers follow the way of the Jedi | m463 wrote: | that is not accurate. Amazon is brimming with dark patterns. | | They walk the line between selling to customers and selling | customers. | | Over time, there are more and more "sponsored" results | occluding and confusing my search results. | | There are now warranty upsell screens on just about every | purchase ("would you like coverage on your $5 part?") | | They don't offer you the lowest cost on an item, you really | have to drill down into all the offers to check. | | If you block part of their site, things don't work - but if you | sign in, all is well. | | Can you delete your browsing history? Well, no. You can "hide" | your browsing history but "removing items from view". | | Search results are peppered with nonsensical results - that you | searched for/bought before. I'm pretty sure this is timed with | memory decay. | | for example if 3 months ago you searched for dishes. Today when | you search for computer parts, there might be a dish thrown | into the results. | | They talk about "free shipping" everywhere, but even if your | cart is $500, you are opted-into non-free shipping and must | manually select free shipping. | | They don't tell you what is being sent in their shipping | emails. But you can install their browser plugin and get all | the info conveniently. | jonplackett wrote: | > They don't tell you what is being sent in their shipping | emails. But you can install their browser plugin and get all | the info conveniently. | | I think this was introduced in response to google scraping | the data from your gmail. But I'll also add to the list of | darkness: | | Different prices on Alexa VS actually checking the site. | | On Alexa, massively prioritising their own brands VS others. | (check out Scott Galloway's tests) | | They're also a case study on darkpatterns.org for how | difficult it is to cancel. | mlthoughts2018 wrote: | Similar for platforms that let you build ecommerce sites, like | Shopify, Squarespace, Wix, etc. They might be cookie cutter and | usually over-priced for the level of hosting you get and the | poorness of the wysiwyg site editing experience, but they solve | a big problem of letting you get up and running with a | trustworthy site fast. | | It's interesting though because there still are plenty of scam | sites hosted by those platforms, plenty of dark patterns on | Amazon too. | yarcob wrote: | Here in Austria/Germany I see these dark patterns only from | Amazon. They always try to get you to subscribe to prime, they | mislead you with delivery times (my girlfriend has Prime and | the website shows LONGER delivery times for her. Same item, | browser signed into my account without Prime: shorter delivery | time) | | I want to support the local economy, so unless an item is only | available on Amazon, I try to avoid buying from them. I've | ordered from lots of different online stores in the past few | years, and in my experience these dark patters are pretty rare. | helmholtz wrote: | Exactly. For all of that bullshit, plus Bezos' absolutely | despicable conduct during Covid, I deleted my Amazon account | and haven't looked back. Music gear? Thomann. Electronics? | Digitec or Rakuten. And..., er, I'm struggling to think what | Amazon was good for anyway. But regardless, unknown stuff? | shopping.google.com | | Honestly, of the top-x tech companies, Amazon is probably one | of the easiest to quit, perhaps after Netflix. | | ETA: And oh yeah. Books? Once again, search on | shopping.google.com and buy from some small vendor. | julianlam wrote: | This is the second time I've seen an article rise to the top of | HN after I've heard it on CBC's Spark. | | Interesting... | [deleted] | fortran77 wrote: | In California, if you sign up for something on-line the law | requires that you be able to cancel it on-line, too. This has | been a wonderful development, and now it's easy to cancel things | like XM subscriptions, etc. | dd36 wrote: | Since when? I tried to cancel NYTimes and it was an ordeal. | TT3351 wrote: | I had great results switching my payment method to recurring | via PayPal and then using the PayPal interface to cancel the | recurring charge, FWIW. Any time a merchant with recurring | charges lets you use PayPal you can usually cancel the | subscription in that way. | anaerobicover wrote: | I did the same for a magazine that made cancellation all | but impossible, using a virtual credit card. I switched the | payment method for the subscription and set the card to | deny all charges. Then I just had to endure two months of | "you're losing access to your subscription" spam. :/ | fortran77 wrote: | Here's some information: https://www.cnet.com/news/companies- | must-let-customers-cance.... | | And here's the Bill that became the law: | | https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm. | .. | scarlac wrote: | Same situation for Denmark and possibly other European | countries | is_true wrote: | I've implented the urgency pattern but it was purely based on | finances. We needed cash flow to make some payments. | swiley wrote: | *manipulation | | "Dark patterns" sounds like some cheesy term someone uses when | they don't want to admit malice. | cratermoon wrote: | Wasn't there an article here recently about some site that was | supposedly telling you how many other people were looking at the | same item, and a look a the javascript showed that it was | basically a (small) random number generated on page load? | tyingq wrote: | If you've never used it before, try out https://booking.com | | They are fairly infamous for fishy looking inventory warnings, | aggressive push to register/login, cross/up sell, etc. | danpalmer wrote: | There's also a secret search term that turns on every single | live A/B test, making the site essentially unusable. I don't | know what it is but a Booking.com employee may be willing to | share if you every catch them after a few drinks. | omnibrain wrote: | It's really bad, but it's still my favourite site to book | hotels. I can filter for all criterias that matter to me and | have all my bookings in one place. And their hotline worked for | me when something went wrong. | | Luckily my brain can filter most of the dark patterns. | tyingq wrote: | Yes, there appears to be good talent there. All the darkish | patterns also add up to a really high conversion. | | Also, Perl is apparently the backend, which gives me a bit of | nostalgia. | reaperducer wrote: | Can confirm. | | I've had booking.com tell me "Hurry! There are only _x_ rooms | left! " when I've been to the property before, and know that | _x_ is a number larger than the entire number of rooms that | exist. | jakevoytko wrote: | This is interesting - I feel like the site should separate dark | patterns that add information from ones that lie or obfuscate. In | my experience, consumers feel differently about these categories. | | I've sat in on a few dozen user research sessions for ecommerce. | This was qualitative research that included their general | shopping habits, and additionally testing new features. The most | interesting thing that I learned is that consumers (a) are | generally pretty aware of when they're being pressured, and (b) | are fine if it's transparent and accurate. | | A classic example of this were low-stock notifications. The | shoppers were generally okay with being told that something was | low stock _if that was really true._ Many people could name | specific items they lost because they were sold out. Some could | also name instances of when they had bought something "1 item | remaining" and seen it on sale the next day. They preferred | having the information because it helped them make an informed | decision. It turns out that lots of people browse the same items | for a while, and use sales or almost-out-of-stock as a "now or | never" moment. | | The most interesting user session I ever sat in on was for a | countdown timer for a sale ending. The designer refused to design | it at first, and then was like, "fine, I'm going to design the | hell out of this and then show you in user research that nobody | wants this." And then she showed it to 5 people in user research, | who were generally okay with it on the condition that it counted | down to the actual sale ending. Some said they actually liked | knowing, because when they're just looking on their phones they | might not be in a good position to buy it, and want to know how | much time they have later to get it. They said that they'll often | refresh the page to see if the timer resets, because if it starts | ticking from the same time, they feel like the site is just | scammy and they'll leave. | | Anyways, I'm not trying to defend lots of these patterns. Most of | them are clearly wrong, and the ones that I mentioned above can | also be used to lie and deceive. But I wouldn't put them all | together - in my experience, consumers generally want accurate | information even if they're aware that the company is doing it to | pressure them. | marcosdumay wrote: | The example session makes it clearer that they are talking | about fake social proof and artificial urgency (if the | promotion ends in 15 minutes, it is a fake one created just | when you entered the site, real ones last until a round time or | for days). Unless the examples are misleading, they should just | name those categories better. | jakevoytko wrote: | Totally, I agree that some of their specific examples mention | this. Reading the whole site, it was not clear to me whether | they holistically viewed "being honest about these things" as | inside or outside the scope of their categorization, which | prompted my comment | phasetransition wrote: | Thanks, it was not clear to me how e.g. (genuine) social | proof is a dark pattern | LiquidSky wrote: | >The shoppers were generally okay with being told that | something was low stock if that was really true. | | But isn't that true of pretty much anything? The problem for | shoppers is that it's almost impossible to know if what you're | being told is true, and most people have been burned by scummy | sales practices too much to trust what a site is telling them | since there's usually no way to verify it. Is the stock really | low? Is the sale really about to end? How would the shopper | know whether it is or whether it's a lie to trick them? | yarcob wrote: | People aren't stupid. People may fall for these tricks once | or twice, but then they realize it's a trick, and they go | shop somewhere else. | | The sites that treat their customers like idiots need to | constantly find new victims. | | Sites that treat their customers with respect may not have as | high conversion rates for new customers, but the existing | customers will go there again. | lestertalk wrote: | The same authors have a followup paper on this very issue: | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.04843.pdf | jakevoytko wrote: | Thank you for the link - I particularly enjoyed section 4, | which really helped drive home that they're referring to | patterns that induce a loss against some ideal: individual | autonomy, societal welfare, etc. The paper puts much less of | an emphasis on situations that are transparent to everyone. | But they still had good examples of obviously harmful | patterns like forced registration. Anyways, thanks! | jiofih wrote: | 99% of these timers are completely bogus - if you open the same | store on a new private browsing window you'll see the timer | reset. Or you'll come back the next day and it's expiring in | <12 hours _again_. | inetknght wrote: | > _In my experience, consumers feel differently about these | categories._ | | So the ends justify the means if people are okay with it? | mattcwilson wrote: | If consumers prefer a pattern, who is harmed by its use? | vharuck wrote: | I think it's more the reasons, if they include honest facts, | partially justify the means. Of course, this could be because | everyone thinks they're to smart to be influenced. In which | case, they appreciate the true information but ignore the | psyops. | sriku wrote: | It lists "forced enrollment" as an example of "forced action" | which is tangential action required tobe completed. For me, a | recpatcha step asking me to classify traffix lights or cars is | one as well. | vz8 wrote: | As I write this, I am attempting to reduce the number of licenses | allocated in the Adobe admin portal. | | After hunting through the site, it appears easy to add, but | impossible to remove licenses without going through sales support | (instant response with a human), who then transfer you to the | "Cancellation Team" which are remarkably hard to find online and | have not replied to previous attempts at cancellation. | | This is my third try, and the wait has been ridiculous. After | finally being connected to a member of their cancellation team, | they are "reviewing my request" and 1-2 minutes (please stand by) | has turned into 15+ | | This experience has been so bad (on top of many others), that I'm | strongly considering moving our entire org to open source tools | (aside from InDesign for the publications group, which our | partners require). | vz8 wrote: | Following up: 50 minutes in chat and 5 rounds of back and forth | like a used car dealership before they would agree to cancel. | | Adobe: "Have 3 months free!" | | Me: "We are no longer using these licenses." | | Adobe: "But you are on the hook for a year. We have reset all | of your licenses to have the same annual renewal date, | regardless of when you purchased them." | | Me: "We are no longer using these licenses. Free months are | just a tactic in hopes that we miss the cancellation window and | are forced to pay for another year." | | Adobe: "We highly recommend that you accept our generous 3 | months free offer." | | Me: "That sounds a little ominous. Please cancel the licenses, | effective immediately." | | This is paraphrased, but follows the essential conversation. | Adobe, you disappoint me. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Tell them they're engaging in racketeering and you're going | to file a complaint with your state AG. | m463 wrote: | What's worse is the poor employee forced to do this day in | and day out. | jonplackett wrote: | They're getting commission when they succeed. | game_the0ry wrote: | Or in the case Wells Fargo, they're threatened with being | fired if they don't meet sales quotas using unethical and | illegal means. Then they're fired anyway when they are | caught. | p410n3 wrote: | Doesn't mean they like it | V-2 wrote: | Sure, but such cognitive dissonance usually gets resolved | in the long run, and the easiest way is to somehow | convince yourself you're doing the right thing after all. | reaperducer wrote: | That sounds like every excuse-making Facebook and Google | employee on HN. | throwawayboise wrote: | Some do. They are the ones who make careers in sales. | They enjoy the challenge of getting people to buy stuff | that they really don't want. | c0nsumer wrote: | Moving tooling is Hard, and the OSS stuff frankly sucks in | comparison. | | Give the Affinity [1] suite a serious look. It's not Photoshop | or Illustrator, but for many users it really is a functional | alternative and much of the tooling works similarly enough that | it's usable (unlike much of the OSS stuff which just gets | maddening). Pricing is also very sane. | | [1] https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/ | yabudemada wrote: | If you do, please be sure to donate (time or money) to the open | source projects to help better them! This is how open source | can exceed commercial software. At the very worst case, if the | projects tumble there's always a possibility to "fork" as an | insurance policy. | vz8 wrote: | We do, and thanks for mentioning it, it's worth bringing up. | | We donate to various projects: on Github, FSF, EFF, direct to | a developers, and even Patreon in one case. | | Autodesk had our money for a while, then we moved to use and | support Blender and never looked back. | | ... we even bought a license to WinRAR, I kid you not. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | WinRAR isn't Open Source. I'm curious though, why go with | rar rather than, say, 7z? | vz8 wrote: | On our devices with Windows, we use the built-in tools, | 7-zip and WinRAR (on a single workstation). | | Mentioning WinRAR was a bit of a joke. | yarcob wrote: | Holy shit that's awful. | | I thought the advantage of subscription software is that you | don't need to pay an expensive one time fee if you need | software just for a short project. But if they make it hard to | cancel, that really sucks. | | I'm so glad I moved away from Adobe... | danpalmer wrote: | If you're doing what I think you are, this is not possible | except in the month that your yearly contract renews. I went | through the same thing. | | You've most likely got yearly licences that you pay off | monthly, which means you can only modify on a yearly basis, so | they don't let you modify most of the year. | veselin wrote: | What concerns me when reading such articles is that if lying is | so prevalent and there is still no action against the bad actors, | then the GDPR tracking checkboxes on many sites are likely also | just sent to /dev/null? | | At least in my experience, one gets subscribed to many things | they explicitly opted out from. It is very easy to say later if | somebody digs to just say yes was clicked instead of no or there | was a bug affecting a small portion of their traffic. | jonnypotty wrote: | Insurance company I use to work for made it really difficult to | actually buy their car insurance online cos they'd virtually | always loose money if you bought their online deals. The website | tried to get you to phone with your quote so that sales reps | could bump your price up for basically no reason. If this was too | much then they'd pretend to talk to their manager for a few mins | to "see if they could get you a good deal" come back on the phone | and make up another price for you. Worked on old people best. | Lovely. | nicbou wrote: | Did it increase total profit? I won't pick up the phone unless | I have no other option, and I won't call someone just to get a | quote. Besides, those sales rep cost money too. | Nextgrid wrote: | I bet it doesn't make any more profit than an equivalent | service managed fully online, but making all the people in | the current operation redundant is "politically" difficult | (or even impossible/very costly depending on employment laws) | so they continue as-is. | kmfrk wrote: | Is there a decent domain blocklist of the offending scripts used | for this? | jacquesm wrote: | deny: all | | allow: news.ycombinator.com ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-30 23:00 UTC)