It's not, it's just a pretty standard and well understood UX principle; A couple of simple words is far more likely to be read than a long fluffy sentence. It's just a UX pattern.
It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.
This again misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm arguing for background checks that allow employers to make reasonable decisions based on those checks show. and then act within the normal confines of employment law.
I've been through background checks for business, I'll probably have more in the future. They are extremely intrusive and uncomfortable, but I don't have a problem with them, because they are pertinent to the business, and conducted by professionals that are accountable for what they say about me and what they do with my information.
Google combined with any tosser that can put up a their side of a story on the internet is no substitution for a background check. This is a joke. People hitting the front page of google with my name are accountable to no-one. They aren't required to notify me, nevermind ask my permission to gather this information. They have no incentive to report back clear unbiased information
By conducting background research this way you sow distrust. It is not mutually consensual, controllable or fair. I wouldn't go near a company that was doing this without very good reasons. I have no problem with the EU making it difficult to abuse search tools in this way.
You misunderstand, I'm saying there are fair and professional ways to find out if someone is trustworthy. Googling their name, and finding some 5 year old article is not one of these. It presents a incomplete picture that is biased towards attention grabbing material from for-profit media. Use proper background checks and references.
There are also fair ways to deal with criminals, and staff you may not trust. Using google results as the bases of randomly deducting pay, removing employment rights, and other discriminatory acts, is not one of these. It would be far too easy for employers to abuse and doesn't lend itself to the employee having stability. This would just increase the chances of the employee returning to crime.
If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional.
> Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record?
Is it useful to have people with a history of low level crime habitually unemployable. Don't we want to reduce crime.
> Mark needs to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to an employer hes no longer a cookie monster.
Mark is innocent of further crimes until he is convicted and the employer would need to have reasonable cause to discriminate against him. We have parole and other such mechanisms where official bodies can decide how long a person needs to speed demonstrating they are no longer a criminal, and make sure the relevant people are aware of this. Why leave it up to some random employer armed with google.
> He would do this by taking a lower than average pay,
Why does he deserve lower pay. This is just enabling employers to take advantage of vulnerable people.
> and giving the employer the option to terminate his employment at any time without cause.
The employer has the right to terminate at any time for mark committing a criminal act. He doesn't need this. Plus this is europe and workers have rights
I guess if you do the exercise first you actively know what information you need. So you can skip the content that's irrelevant and the stuff you know well enough already.
> For car width, I think that that's also a pretty reasonable width, since it's the perfect width to fit two people side-by-side comfortably, with a bit of room in the middle.
How do you know the width of a standard human isn't determined by 2000 years of people choosing partners that would fit beside them on a cart comfortably.
Additionally, if you needed something that did need persisted you would hopefully have the wit to send it on another service (e.g. email) so automatic filtering for all recipients.
Also worth noting that content creators have caught on to this already and are tailoring videos be without sound. There's defiantly a facebook style of video emerging that would look out of place on more traditional video hosts.
I'm not picking through all that hyperbole and condemnation of every dev that isn't you to try a maintain a reasonable argument.
So I go with a "those in glass houses" approach:
The only reason I can't see the terrible quality of your website's photos on my phone is that all the content is so damn small and zoomed out I can barely make out the text never-mind the picture pixels. I don't really want to zoom in because the shade of lime green you've chosen is so jarring it'll likely give me a migraine if it fills the screen.
It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.