[HN Gopher] Dark patterns
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Dark patterns
        
       Author : ColinWright
       Score  : 83 points
       Date   : 2025-07-31 13:17 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nsw.gov.au)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nsw.gov.au)
        
       | altruios wrote:
       | I agree that all of these are dark patterns that have been folded
       | into most websites.
       | 
       | We should not implement these patterns, or allow them to be
       | implemented unchallenged.
        
       | anonu wrote:
       | I appreciate the dark pattern enumeration here - but, as an
       | American, I find it strange that the Australian Government needs
       | to get involved with this PSA.
        
         | altruios wrote:
         | Nothing about this is regional to Australia. Every government
         | should put out this kind of PSA. Dark patterns make everything
         | worse in the long term for short term gain.
        
         | aiisahik wrote:
         | Australia is a nanny state. They will attempt to regulate these
         | dark patterns next.
        
           | yapyap wrote:
           | and that would be bad?
        
           | altruios wrote:
           | GOOD!
           | 
           | These NEED to be regulated HEAVILY.
           | 
           | Dark patterns make everything worse, there is no valid reason
           | to use them. NONE.
           | 
           | Short term gains from such patterns do not offset the harms
           | these patterns cause.
        
             | dsadfjasdf wrote:
             | the market learns, then judges you
        
           | standardUser wrote:
           | A "nanny state" is a government that stops YOU from doing
           | something (which Australia does a lot by Western standards).
           | But what you're describing is market regulation.
        
         | Esophagus4 wrote:
         | As a fellow American, wouldn't it be similar to the FDA putting
         | out a PSA about what baby formula should be avoided?[1] Or
         | warning of the dangers of benzone contamination in
         | sunscreen?[2] Or the CFPB putting out a PSA on responsible
         | credit card practices?
         | 
         | Seems like we have government PSAs too if I'm understanding the
         | comment correctly.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-
         | informatio...
         | 
         | [2] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-
         | medicin...
        
           | staringback wrote:
           | It would be similar to your local state's attorney general,
           | since this is from a state government in Australia. NSW has a
           | similar population to Washington State, for example.
        
             | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
             | > This page describes common dark patterns you will
             | encounter online, so you can identify and avoid them when
             | shopping online.
             | 
             | I don't know about it being from the Attorney General but
             | that seems like something Washington's government might
             | want to announce to the state's residents.
        
           | anonu wrote:
           | What I put in my mind and what I put in my body should not be
           | regulated in the same way. I definitely want the FDA to
           | monitor food and drugs and prevent me from getting sick.
        
         | cjs_ac wrote:
         | Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws.
         | Because of the high cost of running a business in Australia,
         | especially one that involves physical goods, Australians are
         | buying ever more things from overseas over the Internet, which
         | means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that
         | have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to
         | Australian law.
         | 
         | Australian governments also take a very paternalistic approach
         | to dealing with their citizens. This stems from Australia's
         | history as a set of penal colonies.
        
           | rstuart4133 wrote:
           | > Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws.
           | 
           | Infamous if you are a USA business looking to enter
           | Australia, maybe? I have seen some hilarious examples of what
           | overseas companies expecting to be able to treat Australian
           | customers the same was they treat USA citizens, like the top
           | half http://www.hp.com.au loudly proclaiming they do NOT
           | honour their warranties. (Well, as the link to the ACCC
           | explained, they did, but only if you battled your way through
           | a thicket of dark patterns.) But, after the lesson is
           | learned, major foreign companies do seem honour the letter of
           | their warranties in Australia. It must suck to be one of
           | their customers outside of Australia.
           | 
           | Bupa appears to be in the process of learning the same
           | lesson, after a decade of being pricks to deal with. I'm with
           | them. Not by choice. My USA employer pays for health
           | insurance, and that's what they give you. It saves me 1000's
           | a year, but OMG, Bupa make repeated mistakes that are always
           | in their favour, they don't respond when it's pointed out,
           | when they are forced to respond because of repeated phone
           | calls they outright lie. It took me 3 months to get $200 out
           | of them. I did it out of spite in the end, because the $200
           | wasn't worth the amount of time they made me spend. And now,
           | surprise, surprise: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-
           | release/bupa-in-court-for-unco...
           | 
           | > which means more exposure to retailers and subscription
           | services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't
           | be subjected to Australian law
           | 
           | Yep. I was one of them. I did that, and then got bitten, over
           | and over again. Now one of the first things I look for in a
           | company I'm buying off is "do they have an ABN (Australia
           | Business Number" (It's a tax ID.) If they do, they are
           | subject to Australia law, and the risk is at a level I find
           | acceptable. If they don't it's a complete lottery. Even for
           | cheap things. It's not just the lost money, it's the time you
           | waste in dealing with these people, the days of
           | correspondence before you realise they aren't acting in good
           | faith. You then re-order somewhere local, but now you've lost
           | weeks. It's why I buy domains through an Australia mob like
           | https://ventraip.com.au/. Yes I've found foreign companies
           | that have provided me the same, if not better service at a
           | better price. But if every case, that small foreign firm got
           | bought out by some bigger company, and I found myself in dark
           | pattern hell.
           | 
           | There are exceptions of course. Sites like amazon, ebay and
           | alibaba enforce very similar rules on the suppliers they
           | allow onto their platforms. But outside of those platforms,
           | if I have to deal with a company outside of Australia, the
           | first question I ask myself is "am I prepared to throw this
           | money away if it all goes sour". It's not a question I bother
           | asking myself when dealing with an Australia company.
        
         | fph wrote:
         | Right; if they want to get involved, they should go all the way
         | and start fining the hell out of them.
        
         | esbranson wrote:
         | New South Wales Government, not Australia. So even _more_
         | strange, because I doubt NSW could do much re the Australian
         | Consumer Law.
        
           | mrtz wrote:
           | Funnily, it never states it's New South Wales. Even on the
           | "About NSW" page, NSW is never written out.
        
             | flopsamjetsam wrote:
             | It's a good point. Everyone living in Australia knows what
             | "NSW" means, and it's a website that's almost always only
             | used by people living in the state. Except for a page on
             | dark patterns :)
             | 
             | Same blindspot as Americans using two-letter codes for
             | their states (AZ etc.), or any other country's inhabitants
             | using locally-known place names, or not adding their
             | country after it.
        
             | netsharc wrote:
             | Haha, how curious.
             | 
             | Googling '"new south wales" site:www.nsw.gov.au', some
             | pages have it apparently written out in full, but clicking
             | through to the e.g. "State Flag" page, they've updated the
             | page to say "NSW"!
        
       | slowmotarget wrote:
       | Open question: if a bartender greets you with a compliment and a
       | wink, and then proceeds to sell you a cocktail, is it a dark
       | pattern?
        
         | cwmoore wrote:
         | Dimly lit
        
         | zamadatix wrote:
         | "Dark pattern" is specific to digital user interfaces, the
         | bartender use case might be just called emotional marketing or,
         | more plainly, flattery.
         | 
         | Keep in mind, digital or not, not all forms of negatively
         | viewed tactics hold the same weight. E.g. a nagging
         | confirmation for cancellation is typically viewed less
         | negatively than confirm shaming, even though both are often
         | listed as types of dark patterns. The type of coercion in the
         | bartender example is likely towards the less negative side of
         | manipulative tactics in most people's minds.
        
         | dsadfjasdf wrote:
         | If he talked the whole time about making a mojito, then gave
         | you a water
        
       | rapnie wrote:
       | Of course DEI is out the door (already censored in the US) and
       | 'dark patterns' is back. While elsewhere it is still being
       | replaced with the - more descriptive - 'deception pattern' and
       | 'deceptive design'. IETF explored [0] it as inclusive language,
       | and they have a .github config file available [1] in their
       | "Inclusive Terminology in IETF Documents" repository that has the
       | recommendation.
       | 
       | There's a good site on deceptive design [2], which formerly
       | existed at darkpatterns.org
       | 
       | [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/id/draft-knodel-
       | terminology...
       | 
       | [1] https://github.com/ietf/terminology/blob/main/.github/in-
       | sol...
       | 
       | [2] https://www.deceptive.design/
        
         | jimmaswell wrote:
         | This one is a stretch. 'Dark pattern' makes me think of
         | something like a burglar hiding in the darkness of shadows or
         | nighttime, not race.
         | 
         | And the website in question is hosted by the Australian
         | government, American censorship doesn't come into the picture..
        
           | rapnie wrote:
           | Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
           | 
           | For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-
           | list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the
           | rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about
           | the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and
           | how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware.
           | If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut
           | feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious,
           | evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with
           | dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any
           | case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it
           | is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
        
             | zzo38computer wrote:
             | > For black-list/white-list replacing with block-
             | list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer
             | example of the rationale to change the terminology.
             | 
             | Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words
             | will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words
             | "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I
             | could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and
             | allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude
             | and include will be better. To really be more descriptive
             | you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is
             | listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is
             | listed", etc.
             | 
             | > If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut
             | feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious,
             | evil, etc.
             | 
             | At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive
             | (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just
             | because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that
             | they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from
             | knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is
             | illegal and nefarious and evil.
             | 
             | > Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative
             | terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit
             | to adopt it.
             | 
             | I do agree, if you actually do have a better more
             | descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being
             | more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so
             | that can be a disadvantage too. Also, sometimes words are
             | suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to
             | the other word.
        
               | rapnie wrote:
               | > Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not
               | hyphenated from what I could see, though
               | 
               | Yes, I use blocklist / allowlist myself, without the
               | dashes.
               | 
               | > Sometimes the list is used to block and allow
               | something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and
               | include will be better.
               | 
               | Good example. I agree. Using the most descriptive variant
               | is a good practice then, and no need to fall back to a
               | vaguer container concept.
        
             | soulofmischief wrote:
             | If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word
             | "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation,
             | it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many
             | forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I
             | would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it
             | reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
        
           | zzo38computer wrote:
           | I agree that "dark pattern" does not to me think of race,
           | either, but I think that "deceptive design" is a better word
           | anyways.
        
       | jimmaswell wrote:
       | Countdown timers and 'Only 4 left' are often scams, but they
       | should note a few sites like eBay get a pass since for simply
       | giving true facts about the auction.
        
       | zzo38computer wrote:
       | Some things can be mitigated by avoiding CSS and JavaScripts in
       | web pages. My idea of a "computer payment file" can also mitigate
       | some of them (such as hidden costs, especially hidden recurring
       | costs). Forced continuity and some kind of hidden costs probably
       | should be made illegal, though (although there are the details to
       | be considered; the laws should not be made excessive). Someone
       | who uses such a deception could also be given a bad reputation,
       | independently from laws, but it would be necessary to avoid a
       | monopoly, too. Other things could also be done, such as client
       | software on computers to be designed better, and making that you
       | should not require specific types of computers (or, in some
       | cases, any computer, or any internet connection) for many
       | important things.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-07-31 23:01 UTC)