How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/technology/e-commerce-dark-patterns-psychology.html
110 comments
Hi! I know this thread is a day old at this point, but I'm the reporter on this story and just wanted to say thanks for noticing that I put that in. I write a lot about privacy, online advertising and so forth, and I think it's important to readers that reporters at the NYT cover the same issues within our own business.
(Also, I acknowledge that perhaps you were being facetious and I just can't tell. But I still want to take this opportunity to point out the general principle.)
(Also, I acknowledge that perhaps you were being facetious and I just can't tell. But I still want to take this opportunity to point out the general principle.)
Also, I'd actually been considering a Times subscription for a while. That's going to be a hell no from me now.
The hack I use for subscriptions is to pay with a money order, mailed to their location. This makes it impossible for them to autorenew. I started doing this after discovering to my dismay that one subscription used my checking account routing number to auto debit a subscription renewal the following year, at a significantly increased rate, direct from my checking account! I don't see how this isn't larceny or bank robbery.
I also track who is selling my name to marketers by using initials. So my subscriber name instead of Bob Jones is Ned Y. Jones for the NYT sub, Will S. Jones for the WSJ sub, and Roger D. Jones for the Readers Digest. Then when I get mailed an ad for sex toys advertised to Ned Jones, I know the NYT sold my name to them.
I also track who is selling my name to marketers by using initials. So my subscriber name instead of Bob Jones is Ned Y. Jones for the NYT sub, Will S. Jones for the WSJ sub, and Roger D. Jones for the Readers Digest. Then when I get mailed an ad for sex toys advertised to Ned Jones, I know the NYT sold my name to them.
> after discovering to my dismay that one subscription used my checking account routing number to auto debit a subscription renewal the following year, at a significantly increased rate, direct from my checking account
You might ask your state's banking(?) regulatory authority or attorney general's office about that.
You might ask your state's banking(?) regulatory authority or attorney general's office about that.
It's also the principle of the thing. I USED to have a subscription, but they would never give Bernie any print time which pissed me off and I gave up on it.
[deleted]
I'm using virtual credit cards with a preset limit, that my bank generates on demand.
Like the idea of using fake name!
Like the idea of using fake name!
But in the current economy, people routinely need more than 26^2 subscription services to function!
They offer a discount, you just say no. It's a nuisance, but I wouldn't reconsider a subscription to what is maybe the best newspaper in the world because of it.
Citi credit cards (and maybe others) have a good feature where you can set a "virtual card number" with a specific credit limit and/or expiration date. Great way to ensure that your card can be charged once, then payment is denied when a company tries to auto-renew you.
I've heard that if you use privacy.com with a California mailing address they let you cancel online due to California law.
Not true, the law applies to making it easy to opt-out of automatic renewal
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
In the US, businesses try to get you to sign contracts even when it makes zero sense. For example, why do I need to sign a contract for a gym? I pay X dollars for a month, and use it for that month. If I want to use it next month, then I pay X dollars again. Makes sense (this is how it is, at least in the countries I have been), right? Nope. I made the mistake of signing up for NYSC, imagine my surprise when I wanted to cancel (because I was moving away) and I got calls non stop for $250 "cancellation fee"? My fault for not reading the fine print, lesson learned.
Strange that an NYT got facts about NYT wrong:
* You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window
* You can cancel with an email to [email protected]
* By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period
* You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window
* You can cancel with an email to [email protected]
* By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period
>You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window
You're just splitting hairs - you still have to have a conversation with someone, and the rep in the chat box makes it just as difficult as if you'd called in. When I canceled, the rep kept asking me if I was sure, reminded me multiple times what I would be missing out on if I went through with it, etc.. It took more than 5 minutes to get them to pull the trigger on canceling my account.
>You can cancel with an email to [email protected]
But I, and many other users, just want to click on "My Account" and then click a button that says "Cancel Account".
>By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period
NYT doesn't tell you that that's a method you can use to cancel your account, and not everyone is likely to think of it.
You're just splitting hairs - you still have to have a conversation with someone, and the rep in the chat box makes it just as difficult as if you'd called in. When I canceled, the rep kept asking me if I was sure, reminded me multiple times what I would be missing out on if I went through with it, etc.. It took more than 5 minutes to get them to pull the trigger on canceling my account.
>You can cancel with an email to [email protected]
But I, and many other users, just want to click on "My Account" and then click a button that says "Cancel Account".
>By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period
NYT doesn't tell you that that's a method you can use to cancel your account, and not everyone is likely to think of it.
That's a very poor user experience, I agree with much of what you said; I just wanted to add some facts I felt were missing.
>You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window
What do you consider talking online, if not chat?
What do you consider talking online, if not chat?
I was vague. Talking, as in speaking into a phone, feels more laborious than talking as in typing in a chatbox to me. I more often refer to the latter as "chatting."
From 2014: https://canceltimes.tumblr.com
The pattern has gotten more familiar since then. It also seems like they've improved things.
The pattern has gotten more familiar since then. It also seems like they've improved things.
I think at least some of these options were added because CA law made their prior (phone-only) cancellation process illegal.
Are you sure it's not a reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times
Not just e-commerce sites—change.org shows "### have signed," where the number is programmed to tick upwards at a somewhat randomized rate. This is simply dishonest—a lie designed to make you feel like you'll be missing out unless you sign.
Example: https://www.change.org/p/target-stop-filling-the-world-with-...
Example: https://www.change.org/p/target-stop-filling-the-world-with-...
I've pondered this for a while, if this disingenuous design pattern is biasing people to sign their names, in addition to their shady user engagement email spam with click bait polarizing email subject lines and targeted spam "Sizzle, the discussion keeps evolving..."
How they promote petitions after you sign one by showing you 'trending' high shock value petitions is pretty scummy way to grab your attention and stay on the site signing more petitions. There has to be a better way to drive engagement than shoving polarizing clickbait petitions in my face.
Don't believe me? Sign up for the site and sign a petition, enjoy the flood of petition spam in your inbox.
How they promote petitions after you sign one by showing you 'trending' high shock value petitions is pretty scummy way to grab your attention and stay on the site signing more petitions. There has to be a better way to drive engagement than shoving polarizing clickbait petitions in my face.
Don't believe me? Sign up for the site and sign a petition, enjoy the flood of petition spam in your inbox.
It's also pretty common in event promotion. Sell tickets in tiers, but make the capacity of the first two tiers ridiculously small, like 10 or 15 in total. They'll sell out relatively quickly, and it feels like the ticket price is going to jump, so if you do it right, most people will buy their tickets at a slightly inflated rate, and you make more money.
Then you promote online saying stuff like "ABOUT TO SELL OUT! ONLY 50 TICKETS LEFT!" the week before to drive more sales. :P
Then you promote online saying stuff like "ABOUT TO SELL OUT! ONLY 50 TICKETS LEFT!" the week before to drive more sales. :P
Couldn't that just be attributed to a log that is compacted to a count? I would imagine a system like change.org needs to handle plenty of people all of a sudden signing that a append-only log would be sufficient for.
As for the randomness I'd leave that up to the randomness of people signing up.
Of course I could be entirely wrong but I can see if a technical reason why it wouldn't go up cleanly, similar to YouTube views, they're not realtime.
As for the randomness I'd leave that up to the randomness of people signing up.
Of course I could be entirely wrong but I can see if a technical reason why it wouldn't go up cleanly, similar to YouTube views, they're not realtime.
"The report coincides with discussions among lawmakers about regulating technology companies, including through a bill proposed in April by Senators Deb Fischer, Republican of Nebraska, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, that is meant to limit the use of dark patterns by making some of the techniques illegal and giving the Federal Trade Commission more authority to police the practice.
"We are focused in on a problem that I think everyone recognizes," said Ms. Fischer, adding that she became interested in the problem after becoming annoyed in her personal experience with the techniques."
If we used programmer vernacular we might say she was "scratching her own itch".
"We are focused in on a problem that I think everyone recognizes," said Ms. Fischer, adding that she became interested in the problem after becoming annoyed in her personal experience with the techniques."
If we used programmer vernacular we might say she was "scratching her own itch".
Too bad lawmakers must first experience the problem themselves, before they spring to action. I believe support for healthcare problems and modern-day solutions (such as s embryonic stem cell research) would benefit from showing more passion towards others.
Well, it happens everywhere this way:
* developers need to feel production/operations pain to improve on the software they deliver;
* sysops need to feel the constraints and pressures of developers to improve the tools and foundations they provide to developers;
* car drivers need to be a back-seat passenger/pedestrian/bicyclist from time to time to understand how to adapt their own driving habits;
* etc.
First hand experience trumps everything.
First hand experience trumps everything.
The pointless popups became acceptable again because of the pointless cookie law forcing developers to implement dark ui. By the way did you know browsers use a thing called cookies? Scary i know.
>By the way did you know browsers use a thing called cookies? Scary i know.
Not sure why you're being snarky - how entities utilize cookies can be unsettling/'scary' to some.
Not sure why you're being snarky - how entities utilize cookies can be unsettling/'scary' to some.
> I believe support for healthcare problems and modern-day solutions (such as s embryonic stem cell research) would benefit from showing more passion towards others.
Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is principally rooted in compassion towards others — specifically, the human embryos which are killed in such research.
Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is principally rooted in compassion towards others — specifically, the human embryos which are killed in such research.
We have a ton of laws on the books to regulate companies.
The thing is, we are in regulatory capture. The only time they get enforced is when the government wants a share of the profits (with fines that are < profits made) or when fledgling new businesses erode entrenched players (pokerstars and Sheldon Adelson)
At this point, I care about enforcement mechanisms... not more paper. We need to see CEOs behind bars if we want things to change.
The thing is, we are in regulatory capture. The only time they get enforced is when the government wants a share of the profits (with fines that are < profits made) or when fledgling new businesses erode entrenched players (pokerstars and Sheldon Adelson)
At this point, I care about enforcement mechanisms... not more paper. We need to see CEOs behind bars if we want things to change.
An age old tactic I have encountered: Deep discounts (after raising the prices of course). For e.g.
(Harvard research paper - WIP) https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/18-113_16977...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/how-ret...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/09/24/what...
(Harvard research paper - WIP) https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/18-113_16977...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/how-ret...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/camilomaldonado/2018/09/24/what...
Those seedy furniture stores that have "going out of business" sales that seem to last for years, are often running the same scam. Grocery also stores do this, with their shoppers cards discounts.
Consumers are the other half of the problem though. At least some of the scummy tactics are psycological hacks to get around real irrational behaviors that actually work against both the consumer and the business. The rest are dark patterns meant to manipulate and coerce that work strictly for the business, consumers be damned. I'm not sure where the line is.
Side note: Even to this day, I still catch myself sometimes thinking/saying the cost of something is $X rather than $X+1, when the listing price of something is $X.99, and I curse myself for the foolishness :P
Consumers are the other half of the problem though. At least some of the scummy tactics are psycological hacks to get around real irrational behaviors that actually work against both the consumer and the business. The rest are dark patterns meant to manipulate and coerce that work strictly for the business, consumers be damned. I'm not sure where the line is.
Side note: Even to this day, I still catch myself sometimes thinking/saying the cost of something is $X rather than $X+1, when the listing price of something is $X.99, and I curse myself for the foolishness :P
I worked at my uncle’s shoe store as a kid, and he was a huge believer in marking down prices below the recommended MSRP. He even refused to set up an online store so his vendors wouldn’t know what he was doing. The only thing was that there were never any discounts whatsoever.
We lived in a military community and I literally couldn’t count the number of times a customer would walk in and ask for a military discount. We were trained to politely explain our pricing and encourage shoppers to price-check our offerings against any place else. And often customers would demand to give us a discount because they served in $MILITARY_CONFLICT.
No matter how much we tried pointing out that our shoes were effectively on sale in perpetuity, they simply wouldn’t believe us. The psychology of the sale is real.
We lived in a military community and I literally couldn’t count the number of times a customer would walk in and ask for a military discount. We were trained to politely explain our pricing and encourage shoppers to price-check our offerings against any place else. And often customers would demand to give us a discount because they served in $MILITARY_CONFLICT.
No matter how much we tried pointing out that our shoes were effectively on sale in perpetuity, they simply wouldn’t believe us. The psychology of the sale is real.
Years ago in the UK, the prices were commonly, say, £9 19s 11d instead of £10, that is a discount of 1/240 of a pound
> real irrational behaviors that actually work against both the consumer and the business
Do you have examples of such behaviors?
Do you have examples of such behaviors?
Look up JC Penny sales. Their CEO got rid of sales and marked the products down so the normal cost was the sale price. They almost went out of business.
Udemy business model, fake 90% discounts
https://www.google.com/search?q=udemy+discount
https://www.google.com/search?q=udemy+discount
I was just thinking about this. Also their deals “end” within x hours. The number of sites doing dark patterns is disturbing and the way marketing professionals openly brag about manipulating people is disgusting. People are so wrapped up around the masters finger that they convince themselves their work is meaningful. Sorry, but we are all just cogs in the misery machine.
Uk Supermarkets do that All the time and have special small sized versions of brand products made to make it look cheap.
I don’t understand the issue with this sales tactic. There is complete price transparency, and it takes minimal mental capacity to understand that “discounts” are just to fulfill people’s desire to “get” something that others might not be able to. If they want that dopamine hit, then let them have it.
If something is worth X at time Y at place Z to the buyer, then it doesn’t matter what the discount is or isn’t.
If something is worth X at time Y at place Z to the buyer, then it doesn’t matter what the discount is or isn’t.
There is not complete price transparency. The shop claims the normal price is higher than it actually is, in order to make the discount seem more attractive. That is deception, and therefore not transparency.
If only the final price mattered, shops wouldn't be advertising such discounts.
If only the final price mattered, shops wouldn't be advertising such discounts.
The only purpose of a discount is to make the buyer feel better. If they changed the price without labeling it a discount, the buyer’s utility of the item doesn’t change, but they’re feeling good about it does.
I’d rather see education in schools teaching people that discounts are sales tactics that should be ignored rather than laws governing discounts, which would be costlier to implement and enforce.
I’d rather see education in schools teaching people that discounts are sales tactics that should be ignored rather than laws governing discounts, which would be costlier to implement and enforce.
It makes the buyer feel better because the buyer gets intentionally misinformed about the value of the item. That lies can make someone feel good does not necessarily make the lie okay. (I suppose it might in some circumstances, but I don't think trying to manipulate someone into spending money is one of those circumstances.)
If you think discounts are completely meaningless, then completely banning advertising with discounts is very easy to implement and enforce. Much easier than to properly educate everybody how to arm themselves against deceptive sales practices (though I agree it would be nice if we could do that).
If you think discounts are completely meaningless, then completely banning advertising with discounts is very easy to implement and enforce. Much easier than to properly educate everybody how to arm themselves against deceptive sales practices (though I agree it would be nice if we could do that).
The value of an item is decided at the time an agreement is made between a seller and buyer. There is no one size fits all "value" until then. This can easily be seen in goods such as low volume, high margin goods such as land, vehicles, heavy equipment, intellectual property, and of course, labor.
However, in the developed world, logistics and supply chains have sufficiently developed to allow for minuscule margins on many everyday, low price items that make it uneconomical to negotiate the value of each item to each buyer, so the seller just lists one price for everyone.
In markets in poorer countries, the seller might not do that, and it might be worth their time to negotiate each sale. If they say to one buyer "I'll sell this to you for 50% off today, and charges him the same price as yesterday, and the buyer agrees to buy", who is harmed?
Price discrimination is a natural part of markets, and the only reason it hasn't been happening is because it wasn't worth the retailers time in the US. But with automated systems coming into place, there is no more labor cost and so it's becoming economical to price discriminate again.
However, in the developed world, logistics and supply chains have sufficiently developed to allow for minuscule margins on many everyday, low price items that make it uneconomical to negotiate the value of each item to each buyer, so the seller just lists one price for everyone.
In markets in poorer countries, the seller might not do that, and it might be worth their time to negotiate each sale. If they say to one buyer "I'll sell this to you for 50% off today, and charges him the same price as yesterday, and the buyer agrees to buy", who is harmed?
Price discrimination is a natural part of markets, and the only reason it hasn't been happening is because it wasn't worth the retailers time in the US. But with automated systems coming into place, there is no more labor cost and so it's becoming economical to price discriminate again.
If you want to get technical about it, the value is determined by the market, by the forces of supply and demand. Advertising with a fake discount suggests that the market was willing to pay more for the product than it actually was.
Most products are actually sold with a one size fits all price. People don't haggle over every single item they buy in a shop.
Most products are actually sold with a one size fits all price. People don't haggle over every single item they buy in a shop.
The market does not pay for anything. Individual buyers pay for things, and individual buyers and sellers determine the value of items, at a certain place, at a certain time.
Most everyday items are sold “one size fits all” (but not in large quantities) in developed countries (since the seller's time is valuable enough to offset the extra revenue (or loss) from price discrimination), but there are quite a few places in the world where people still haggle over the price of tomatoes and onions.
But even in the developed world, once you move beyond low margin retail items that are not expiring goods, there is no single sale price. Sometimes price discriminating turns off more customers than the revenue it generates or the labor it costs the seller, so it doesn't make sense for a seller to do it. Sometimes it's worth it, so some sellers might.
Most everyday items are sold “one size fits all” (but not in large quantities) in developed countries (since the seller's time is valuable enough to offset the extra revenue (or loss) from price discrimination), but there are quite a few places in the world where people still haggle over the price of tomatoes and onions.
But even in the developed world, once you move beyond low margin retail items that are not expiring goods, there is no single sale price. Sometimes price discriminating turns off more customers than the revenue it generates or the labor it costs the seller, so it doesn't make sense for a seller to do it. Sometimes it's worth it, so some sellers might.
Do we really need to deconstruct all of economics here? The market consists of those individual buyers and sellers. But they set the value together. No single buyer can set the value of the items they want to buy in the supermarket. They buy them or they don't buy them. In response to that, the seller adjusts the price. If not enough people buy it, the seller lowers the price, if he runs out too fast, he raises the price. That is "the market" determining the price in a free market.
So if a potential buyer sees something 70% discounted, that implies that originally, the market determined that higher price as a fair price: a price that at least some buyers would pay for this item. The buyer trusts the market that that is apparently a fair price, but today the buyer is in luck, because it's been discounted to below the usual market price!
If the seller advertises with a fake discount, he's betraying the buyer's trust in the free market by intentionally lying about what the market is willing to pay for this item.
So if a potential buyer sees something 70% discounted, that implies that originally, the market determined that higher price as a fair price: a price that at least some buyers would pay for this item. The buyer trusts the market that that is apparently a fair price, but today the buyer is in luck, because it's been discounted to below the usual market price!
If the seller advertises with a fake discount, he's betraying the buyer's trust in the free market by intentionally lying about what the market is willing to pay for this item.
>So if a potential buyer sees something 70% discounted, that implies that originally, the market determined that higher price as a fair price: a price that at least some buyers would pay for this item. The buyer trusts the market that that is apparently a fair price, but today the buyer is in luck, because it's been discounted to below the usual market price!
This whole paragraph is wrong in my opinion. A 70% discount does NOT imply anything other than it's 70% off of some number that the seller is free to decide, since they own the product they are selling and I'm not aware of any laws dictating what they have to sell at.
The second part I don't agree with is a seller selling at "below" market price. There is no such thing, unless the seller is doing charity work. When a sale happens, that is at the market price, unless of course there is some collusion where the buyer and seller agree to do some other trade-off to avoid paying taxes, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation.
On popular sale days, such as Black Friday, the sellers aren't selling below market price. They are selling at the price that they think they need to in order to get the publicity/feet in the door that they think will lead to other sales. In effect, the seller is buying the buyer's time and attention and whatever probability the buyer has of spending more money on other things with the "discount" they offered.
This whole paragraph is wrong in my opinion. A 70% discount does NOT imply anything other than it's 70% off of some number that the seller is free to decide, since they own the product they are selling and I'm not aware of any laws dictating what they have to sell at.
The second part I don't agree with is a seller selling at "below" market price. There is no such thing, unless the seller is doing charity work. When a sale happens, that is at the market price, unless of course there is some collusion where the buyer and seller agree to do some other trade-off to avoid paying taxes, but that's neither here nor there in this conversation.
On popular sale days, such as Black Friday, the sellers aren't selling below market price. They are selling at the price that they think they need to in order to get the publicity/feet in the door that they think will lead to other sales. In effect, the seller is buying the buyer's time and attention and whatever probability the buyer has of spending more money on other things with the "discount" they offered.
We're not talking about what the law says, we're talking about whether it's misleading.
If the amount from which it was discounted is utterly meaningless, then why mention it at all? Because the seller wants the buyer to believe the item is more valuable than it really is. That's why it's misleading.
The fact that the deception is legal, doesn't mean it's not deceptive. It is deceptive. It is very clearly, obviously, intentionally deceptive. The seller wants the buyer to believe they're getting a great deal that they're not getting, because the product was never actually meaningfully sold at that original price. That original price only exists to mislead the buyer.
If the amount from which it was discounted is utterly meaningless, then why mention it at all? Because the seller wants the buyer to believe the item is more valuable than it really is. That's why it's misleading.
The fact that the deception is legal, doesn't mean it's not deceptive. It is deceptive. It is very clearly, obviously, intentionally deceptive. The seller wants the buyer to believe they're getting a great deal that they're not getting, because the product was never actually meaningfully sold at that original price. That original price only exists to mislead the buyer.
Real life shows there exists a population of buyers that would prefer store A than store B in the example below:
Store A: sells item X at 80% off for $10 Store B: sells item X for $10
It's Kohl's and Bed Bath and Beyond and JCPenney's entire business model. Some people love waiting for their coupons at home and figuring out where they can get the most "%" off.
Should we outlaw store A?
Store A: sells item X at 80% off for $10 Store B: sells item X for $10
It's Kohl's and Bed Bath and Beyond and JCPenney's entire business model. Some people love waiting for their coupons at home and figuring out where they can get the most "%" off.
Should we outlaw store A?
> I’d rather see education in schools teaching people that discounts are sales tactics that should be ignored
"I'd rather see education in schools teaching people that $instances-of-abuse are members of $family-of-methods-of-abuse that one should protect themselves against".
Funny how for almost everything else, the abuse itself is considered both illegal and morally repugnant, yet abusive sales tactics are legally above board and the profession itself is considered respectable.
"I'd rather see education in schools teaching people that $instances-of-abuse are members of $family-of-methods-of-abuse that one should protect themselves against".
Funny how for almost everything else, the abuse itself is considered both illegal and morally repugnant, yet abusive sales tactics are legally above board and the profession itself is considered respectable.
Where is the abuse? A seller has the right to sell at whatever price they want (assuming non emergency situations).
If I'm a seller, I can raise the price 100% at 10AM, and then put a sign that says 70% off. And then the next day, I can reduce the price 100%. The very use of ambiguous wording is a signal that it's a sales tactic.
No one advertises 50% off the median average sale price in the past 30 days, because then it would be abuse. But that's not what any seller advertises. Stating that someone else saved Y dollars is also ambiguous. Saved compared to what?
Booking.com claiming so and so is selling out quickly! What is quickly defined as?
Until there are falsifiable metrics being falsified, I don't see what the abuse is.
If I'm a seller, I can raise the price 100% at 10AM, and then put a sign that says 70% off. And then the next day, I can reduce the price 100%. The very use of ambiguous wording is a signal that it's a sales tactic.
No one advertises 50% off the median average sale price in the past 30 days, because then it would be abuse. But that's not what any seller advertises. Stating that someone else saved Y dollars is also ambiguous. Saved compared to what?
Booking.com claiming so and so is selling out quickly! What is quickly defined as?
Until there are falsifiable metrics being falsified, I don't see what the abuse is.
It's abuse because it's intended to mislead the customer.
And it succeeds at misleading the customer, or nobody would be doing this. A misled customer is not an informed customer. For a free market it's vital that customers are well-informed, therefore this kind of deception hurts the free market. The customer agrees to the transaction based on a lie.
Even if technically, from a certain perspective it's technically true ("this morning before I opened the shop, the price was indeed that much higher for 5 minutes"), it's still deception.
And it succeeds at misleading the customer, or nobody would be doing this. A misled customer is not an informed customer. For a free market it's vital that customers are well-informed, therefore this kind of deception hurts the free market. The customer agrees to the transaction based on a lie.
Even if technically, from a certain perspective it's technically true ("this morning before I opened the shop, the price was indeed that much higher for 5 minutes"), it's still deception.
You say elsewhere in the thread; you and others use discounts because it's a psychological trick that makes buyers feel good - and thus more likely to buy.
> If I'm a seller, I can raise the price 100% at 10AM, and then put a sign that says 70% off. And then the next day, I can reduce the price 100%.
Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitive. Why would you do the former rather than the latter? Only because of a clear intent to abuse the customer.
> Booking.com claiming so and so is selling out quickly! What is quickly defined as?
Words have meanings. I can't tell you what exactly "quickly" is defined, but I believe everyone reasonable would assume it's something around minutes to hours in this particular business. Ask yourself, what would you assume?
> Until there are falsifiable metrics being falsified, I don't see what the abuse is.
I.e. until there's a clear and unambiguous statement that turns out to be purposefully false, you don't see a problem? Most lies aren't using clear and unambiguous language precisely because that makes them easier to spot; it doesn't change the fact that the intent is malicious towards your fellow human beings.
> If I'm a seller, I can raise the price 100% at 10AM, and then put a sign that says 70% off. And then the next day, I can reduce the price 100%.
Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitive. Why would you do the former rather than the latter? Only because of a clear intent to abuse the customer.
> Booking.com claiming so and so is selling out quickly! What is quickly defined as?
Words have meanings. I can't tell you what exactly "quickly" is defined, but I believe everyone reasonable would assume it's something around minutes to hours in this particular business. Ask yourself, what would you assume?
> Until there are falsifiable metrics being falsified, I don't see what the abuse is.
I.e. until there's a clear and unambiguous statement that turns out to be purposefully false, you don't see a problem? Most lies aren't using clear and unambiguous language precisely because that makes them easier to spot; it doesn't change the fact that the intent is malicious towards your fellow human beings.
>Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitive. Why would you do the former rather than the latter? Only because of a clear intent to abuse the customer.
JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount". See my other comment for source, it was a very famous example of a famous Apple executive trying to do what makes sense on paper, but not in practice.
>Words have meanings. I can't tell you what exactly "quickly" is defined, but I believe everyone reasonable would assume it's something around minutes to hours in this particular business. Ask yourself, what would you assume?
I wouldn't assume anything, because there is not enough information given by the seller. I also know that a seller's incentive is to sell, and that as a buyer, the only thing I need to be concerned with is how much I'm paying.
>I.e. until there's a clear and unambiguous statement that turns out to be purposefully false, you don't see a problem? Most lies aren't using clear and unambiguous language precisely because that makes them easier to spot; it doesn't change the fact that the intent is malicious towards your fellow human beings.
How are the courts supposed to prove intent? Especially when a seller has the legal right to change the price of their goods anytime they like. Intent also doesn't have to be malicious. As I showed in my earlier example, the sellers that use discounts make more money...because certain people like shopping at places that give big discounts, they like the feeling of getting a discount. I don't think the harm to society rises to the level of involving the courts in this case.
JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount". See my other comment for source, it was a very famous example of a famous Apple executive trying to do what makes sense on paper, but not in practice.
>Words have meanings. I can't tell you what exactly "quickly" is defined, but I believe everyone reasonable would assume it's something around minutes to hours in this particular business. Ask yourself, what would you assume?
I wouldn't assume anything, because there is not enough information given by the seller. I also know that a seller's incentive is to sell, and that as a buyer, the only thing I need to be concerned with is how much I'm paying.
>I.e. until there's a clear and unambiguous statement that turns out to be purposefully false, you don't see a problem? Most lies aren't using clear and unambiguous language precisely because that makes them easier to spot; it doesn't change the fact that the intent is malicious towards your fellow human beings.
How are the courts supposed to prove intent? Especially when a seller has the legal right to change the price of their goods anytime they like. Intent also doesn't have to be malicious. As I showed in my earlier example, the sellers that use discounts make more money...because certain people like shopping at places that give big discounts, they like the feeling of getting a discount. I don't think the harm to society rises to the level of involving the courts in this case.
> JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount".
Is it that the buyers like it, or simply that the deception is effective? If you point out to buyers that the marked up price was fake and that the discounted price was always the real price, do they actually like that?
Nobody is denying that the deception is effective. But it being effective doesn't make it any less deceptive.
Is it that the buyers like it, or simply that the deception is effective? If you point out to buyers that the marked up price was fake and that the discounted price was always the real price, do they actually like that?
Nobody is denying that the deception is effective. But it being effective doesn't make it any less deceptive.
> Booking.com claiming so and so is selling out quickly! What is quickly defined as?
Look, be whoever you want, but own it, don't hide behind equivocation. No one else is buying (haha) any of this. The only person you're working to convince here is yourself.
Look, be whoever you want, but own it, don't hide behind equivocation. No one else is buying (haha) any of this. The only person you're working to convince here is yourself.
The discussion is regarding the legality of it, hence the relevance of defining quickly. It has nothing to do with "hiding behind equivocation".
No, specifically it was how it's not illegal, even though it's abusive. You're disputing that it's abusive. It is certainly lying. You may be fine with it. But it's lying.
Assume that the price of an item is $100 today ($200 original price - so a 50% discount). A week from now is Black Friday. The retailer has said 70% off on all goods. Now if the retailer increases the price to $333.33 (100/(1-0.7)) and then discounts it by 70% to give a final selling price of $100, wouldn't you feel cheated? I know I would.
The words original price mean nothing to me, as it should to everyone. I ignore discounts too, I only care about how much money is coming out of my pocket for what I'm paying for, and what my alternatives are.
I lie about discounts all the time, all salespeople have to. Buying a house, car, land, businesses, etc. People in poorer countries where bartering is common do it for everyday items too like fruits and vegetables. They'll say "I'll make a deal for you I don't make for anyone else."...obviously they make it for others too, but is the buyer supposed to take it to heart? No, it's all in the game.
If the retailer says 70% off the rolling average sale price during the past 365 days, and then lies about THAT, I would feel cheated.
I lie about discounts all the time, all salespeople have to. Buying a house, car, land, businesses, etc. People in poorer countries where bartering is common do it for everyday items too like fruits and vegetables. They'll say "I'll make a deal for you I don't make for anyone else."...obviously they make it for others too, but is the buyer supposed to take it to heart? No, it's all in the game.
If the retailer says 70% off the rolling average sale price during the past 365 days, and then lies about THAT, I would feel cheated.
But this is placing a giant burden on the consumer to do legal level language analysis of a sales pitch. That's not going to happen, so that kind of language is taking advantage of the average person since they aren't going to do that. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not shady and dirty. Your bartering example is a bit out of context, that's not as obvious as a dark pattern or blatantly misleading via pricing and sales.
[deleted]
Clearly it does matter in practice, otherwise discounts wouldn't be worth advertising?
Because people like the feeling of getting a discount. I don't know why, but it satisfies some part of their ego. Discounts don't change the utility of the product or the budget of the buyer or anything, other than the buyer feeling good about themself.
You are way overcomplicating it. People are not talking about comparing the discounted price with some fictional “intrinsic utility” price and your comments about the utility of the item are tone deaf and missing the point.
Advertising that you are selling something at a discount is information that your price might be lower than a competitor. Nobody likes getting a discount at store A then seeing the same item for less at store B, and as a result, people don’t care much about discounts in an absolute sense. Only that the information announcement of the discount is advertising price competition with other sellers or substitutes.
When a seller lies about the original price to claim a discount, they are banking on consumers just “believing the lie” that the fake, pre-discount price was a competitive price compared with competitors or substitutes.
People choose to believe it’s a malicious & morally wrong action for the seller to do that, to intentionally play against consumers’ penchant to seek the lowest price among various alternatives by creating a discount from an inflated reference price that is intentionally not competitive with other sellers, and to hope that it fools some consumers who trust the seller instead of doing the legwork to compare prices & learn if the pre-discount price was in line with competitors.
People just choose to believe a seller that chooses to do this is shitty and acting antagonistically to manipulate buyers. They expect sellers to be honest about sources of price competition.
A discount should be with regard to a prevailing market aggregated price, or some close & sincere approximation from sampling the prices at competitors or prices of substitutes. If the discount is in regard to some other way of setting the pre-discount price, then it’s intentionally manipulating people to play on the cognitive flaw that they will nonetheless believe the discount is in regard to some notion of a “fair market value” price level, especially in situations driven by short-term cognition.
Advertising that you are selling something at a discount is information that your price might be lower than a competitor. Nobody likes getting a discount at store A then seeing the same item for less at store B, and as a result, people don’t care much about discounts in an absolute sense. Only that the information announcement of the discount is advertising price competition with other sellers or substitutes.
When a seller lies about the original price to claim a discount, they are banking on consumers just “believing the lie” that the fake, pre-discount price was a competitive price compared with competitors or substitutes.
People choose to believe it’s a malicious & morally wrong action for the seller to do that, to intentionally play against consumers’ penchant to seek the lowest price among various alternatives by creating a discount from an inflated reference price that is intentionally not competitive with other sellers, and to hope that it fools some consumers who trust the seller instead of doing the legwork to compare prices & learn if the pre-discount price was in line with competitors.
People just choose to believe a seller that chooses to do this is shitty and acting antagonistically to manipulate buyers. They expect sellers to be honest about sources of price competition.
A discount should be with regard to a prevailing market aggregated price, or some close & sincere approximation from sampling the prices at competitors or prices of substitutes. If the discount is in regard to some other way of setting the pre-discount price, then it’s intentionally manipulating people to play on the cognitive flaw that they will nonetheless believe the discount is in regard to some notion of a “fair market value” price level, especially in situations driven by short-term cognition.
I think expecting a seller to make sure they have the lowest price compared to other sellers is ridiculous.
It’s not a seller’s job to make sure the buyer is getting the lowest price. It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place.
People like to THINK they are getting a discount. They don’t care that the actually are. Clear evidence is JCPenney trying to offer people the best price without discounts:
https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/152018/lessons-f...
It’s how Kohl’s and Bed Bath And Beyond survive. Consumers rewarded sellers that offer 80% off ridiculously marked up items versus JC Penney who tried to offer an “honest” market price, and they forced JC Penney to engage in “deceptive” sale pricing again.
It’s not a seller’s job to make sure the buyer is getting the lowest price. It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place.
People like to THINK they are getting a discount. They don’t care that the actually are. Clear evidence is JCPenney trying to offer people the best price without discounts:
https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/152018/lessons-f...
It’s how Kohl’s and Bed Bath And Beyond survive. Consumers rewarded sellers that offer 80% off ridiculously marked up items versus JC Penney who tried to offer an “honest” market price, and they forced JC Penney to engage in “deceptive” sale pricing again.
> “I think expecting a seller to make sure they have the lowest price compared to other sellers is ridiculous.”
It’s fine for you to think that, but it means you’re just arguing with yourself, because most everyone agrees it is a fair expectation of sellers, and that when seller behavior deviates from this social norm, it is proper to view that as a manipulative or normatively condemnable seller behavior.
Sellers can’t have it both ways. You can’t act like your prices are lower by hyping them in a discount, but really be coyly saying you have no obligation to provide competitive prices and the discount reference point is purely fictional. That’s disingenuous and such a seller knows full well they are banking on tricking or manipulating people.
It’s fine for you to think that, but it means you’re just arguing with yourself, because most everyone agrees it is a fair expectation of sellers, and that when seller behavior deviates from this social norm, it is proper to view that as a manipulative or normatively condemnable seller behavior.
Sellers can’t have it both ways. You can’t act like your prices are lower by hyping them in a discount, but really be coyly saying you have no obligation to provide competitive prices and the discount reference point is purely fictional. That’s disingenuous and such a seller knows full well they are banking on tricking or manipulating people.
People care more about feeling like they save money vs. actually saving money?
If they found out they were just given the illusion of saving money vs. actually saving money who would choose the illusion? I sure as hell wouldn't it seems totally illogical.
If they found out they were just given the illusion of saving money vs. actually saving money who would choose the illusion? I sure as hell wouldn't it seems totally illogical.
People can search the price on their phone and compare, but many don't. There does exist a significant population that feels better getting a discount.
Businesses can set prices however they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to buy it. But when shady pricing and sales come in the consumer feels better because they think they're saving and don't realize they are being deceived. Certainly there are lazy people, but that's entirely different no one would willingly pay more for the same service. They're only "happy" because they're being lied to. Why should we reinforce this kind of behavior?
We shouldn't, but the more efficient, cheaper, long term, structural way to fix it is to create more educated consumers. Teach children in school how to make proper comparisons, how to avoid sales tactics, how to figure out the bottom line for them.
How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amount of days? Force all sellers to maintain records of their sales to compare against, and then go around doing spot checks?
Why not just have the government buy up billboards and TV ad spots educating everyone not to fall for the discounts and to compare the bottom line number they pay, and reward sellers that offer price transparency with their business?
How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amount of days? Force all sellers to maintain records of their sales to compare against, and then go around doing spot checks?
Why not just have the government buy up billboards and TV ad spots educating everyone not to fall for the discounts and to compare the bottom line number they pay, and reward sellers that offer price transparency with their business?
Never said anything about policing PRICES... The sales pricing is dirty not illegal. Businesses should be free to price things however they want, but that doesn't mean certain sales pricing isn't a dirty trick. And it's DEFINITELEY not in the same category as these other practices.
Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and this discussion not a nebulous discussion about %50 sales.
It's shitty and takes advantage of people. Dark patterns and automatically raising prices and making it near impossible to cancel accounts... this is what people are talking about legislating. Ff you are defending those dark patterns and deceptive tactics from being legislated against you are basically taking the position of a con man or someone who stands to profit from that behavior. They aren't providing a better service they're providing deceptive business practices.
Why would you try to implement some nationwide educational campaign instead of outlawing by definition a deceptive business practice? That would be a giant misallocation of resources and not even guaranteed to help. How are you going to educate the old and succeptible? They are the ones most prone to these attacks.
What you're saying isn't just late night TV ads can use $99.99 to appeal to customers, no one has a problem with that. You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?
Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and this discussion not a nebulous discussion about %50 sales.
It's shitty and takes advantage of people. Dark patterns and automatically raising prices and making it near impossible to cancel accounts... this is what people are talking about legislating. Ff you are defending those dark patterns and deceptive tactics from being legislated against you are basically taking the position of a con man or someone who stands to profit from that behavior. They aren't providing a better service they're providing deceptive business practices.
Why would you try to implement some nationwide educational campaign instead of outlawing by definition a deceptive business practice? That would be a giant misallocation of resources and not even guaranteed to help. How are you going to educate the old and succeptible? They are the ones most prone to these attacks.
What you're saying isn't just late night TV ads can use $99.99 to appeal to customers, no one has a problem with that. You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?
>You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?
I'm not saying this at all. My original comment was a reply to vmurthy whose comment was specifically about discounting a raised price, and my response to him states that I'm commenting about that specific sales tactic.
For the record, I am against any practice that unnecessarily hides the price one is paying or makes buttons confusing and other "dark" UI patterns. However, if the price one is paying is clearly visible, I see no reason to regulate anything else regarding that price, such as x% off or limited time offer or that nonsense.
I'm not saying this at all. My original comment was a reply to vmurthy whose comment was specifically about discounting a raised price, and my response to him states that I'm commenting about that specific sales tactic.
For the record, I am against any practice that unnecessarily hides the price one is paying or makes buttons confusing and other "dark" UI patterns. However, if the price one is paying is clearly visible, I see no reason to regulate anything else regarding that price, such as x% off or limited time offer or that nonsense.
From your comment above:
"It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place."
So if the seller can't be expected to know their competitors prices how can the consumer be expected to keep track of all that information for all the products they buy? Additionally, sellers evaluate competitors' prices and compare them to their own all the time.
So if the seller can't be expected to know their competitors prices how can the consumer be expected to keep track of all that information for all the products they buy? Additionally, sellers evaluate competitors' prices and compare them to their own all the time.
I never implied a consumer should be expected to keep track. Not having perfect knowledge of every transaction in the marketplace is a risk for all buyers and sellers. Holding a seller liable for another seller's price is ludicrous though. That's the buyer's job to do, by not giving business to a seller who isn't in line with the market (other sellers). No reason to get lawyers and courts and regulatory bodies involved.
Not all these notifications are fake but they can still be misleading.
I've investigated a few of these sorts of apps on Shopify. They do use actual customer names but how long ago those orders came in seems a little dubious.
I believe it's not so much to promote fear of missing out - other apps do that better - e.g. ones that copy booking.com's pattern of 'only x left!'.
Instead, they're a very good way to signal to potential buyers that the (usually small) shop is being used by other shoppers to increase trust.
Few people go in to empty restaurants.
It would be interesting to know if there are legal implications to lying about your visitors using services like these, though.
I've investigated a few of these sorts of apps on Shopify. They do use actual customer names but how long ago those orders came in seems a little dubious.
I believe it's not so much to promote fear of missing out - other apps do that better - e.g. ones that copy booking.com's pattern of 'only x left!'.
Instead, they're a very good way to signal to potential buyers that the (usually small) shop is being used by other shoppers to increase trust.
Few people go in to empty restaurants.
It would be interesting to know if there are legal implications to lying about your visitors using services like these, though.
Why would the ThredUp example not fall under current regulations against false advertising? If I say "This dress was bought 4 minutes ago!" or "Hurry now! Only one left!", those statements are obviously either true or false.
Those statements say nothing about the product they're selling to you.
The FTC regulates advertisements. [1] At what point is a statement like "[x] just saved $[y]!" on your own site being shown to a visitor constitute an advertisement for your service? Or is it just advertisements involving a paid third party?
From 1: "Advertisements with specific claims can be substantiated with evidence"
[1] https://bondstreet.com/truth-in-advertising-laws/
From 1: "Advertisements with specific claims can be substantiated with evidence"
[1] https://bondstreet.com/truth-in-advertising-laws/
As much as I don’t like PayPal I will never sign up for any subscription that does not go through PayPal. Reason being, I can log into PayPal and stop my subscriptions any time without jumping through hoops.
I run an international e-commerce site in several countries. We have been recommended all these dark patterns. Sometimes I see sites that apply all of them at once and a new user gets no less than 3 pop-ups within 10 seconds engaging them in different ways.
Many of these don't work long-term. These sites won't last long when they get one-time users who are deal seekers. This reminds me of back when all video sites had 10 ads and pop-ups or blogging sites. They all learned eventually.
I predict two dark patterns will stay with us. Making it hard to unsubscribe and designing the "YES" button to be more attractive to click than the "NO" button. They don't involve lying and they work surprisingly well.
Many of these don't work long-term. These sites won't last long when they get one-time users who are deal seekers. This reminds me of back when all video sites had 10 ads and pop-ups or blogging sites. They all learned eventually.
I predict two dark patterns will stay with us. Making it hard to unsubscribe and designing the "YES" button to be more attractive to click than the "NO" button. They don't involve lying and they work surprisingly well.
I think most of these tactics are explicitly forbidden in the EU. Opt-in (to newsletters and spam) is mandatory, for instance.
I recall in another FB thread that shaming employees was not totally frowned-upon if it planted the seed in the engineer that they should maybe reflect on what they're contributing to and consider alternative work.
Would shaming designers that are complicit in these dark patterns be a similar, favourable way of movement towards a better direction?
I actually finished a book that tries to do that[1]. But I don't believe enough designers are told from their peers that maybe the way they’re exercising their knowledge of design theory and psychology is being shitty towards people.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44432844-ruined-by-desig...
Would shaming designers that are complicit in these dark patterns be a similar, favourable way of movement towards a better direction?
I actually finished a book that tries to do that[1]. But I don't believe enough designers are told from their peers that maybe the way they’re exercising their knowledge of design theory and psychology is being shitty towards people.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44432844-ruined-by-desig...
Thank you for this point (and book recommendation). It has clarified my thinking on dark patterns, something I've long suspected. We need to (re)educate designers about the mistakes they're making, in service of what I assume are data- hungry marketing employees.
I also enjoyed and support the phrase from the article: "confirmshaming."
I also enjoyed and support the phrase from the article: "confirmshaming."
[deleted]
NYTimes + incognito = rejection.
Disable javascript on their site.
The next question would be "why is the browser advertising that it's in incognito mode?", but that's not a question for the NYT.
The next question would be "why is the browser advertising that it's in incognito mode?", but that's not a question for the NYT.
This "feature" is being removed:
https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/1138471166115368960
https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/1138471166115368960
Here's ThredUP's Julia Boyle posting a number of open engineering positions in a recent "Who is hiring?" thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18358221
Wow thredup has a dress discounted from $60 available for only $7.39 if I sign up now! I better hurry as there’s only 3 left and Sarah from New Jersey just got one!
There goes that nasty evil capitalism, "It wasn't my lack of will power and cognitive short falls that caused me to buy these things ... it was capitalism's fault. I'm completely innocent and would never make bad decisions of my own accord ..."
That is somewhat unfair. Most of the time, it’s a naive consumer on one side, and an army of UI experts and behavioral scientists on the other. That consumer is hopelessly outmatched, and the company will absolutely find a way to hack his or her psychology.
Yep. I read behavioral studies by scientists so I can use this info to manipulate others. This is my job and I am good at it or I wouldn’t be doing it. There are hundreds of behavioral tricks to make people buy. Even when one is aware of them. It’s funny when people say sales don’t work on them. Those are EXACTLY the people sales work best on.
Citing human psychology is a sad excuse to excuse one's self from personal responsibility. You are the final arbiter of all decisions that you make. Nobody else. You are the one that is ultimately responsible.
If this were loot boxes, then maybe we'd be having a different discussion, but unless they're tricking you into something other than what is advertised, then the onus ultimately falls upon you to control your desire to purchase something.
If this were loot boxes, then maybe we'd be having a different discussion, but unless they're tricking you into something other than what is advertised, then the onus ultimately falls upon you to control your desire to purchase something.
Um, what makes one form of dishonesty acceptable and loot box dishonesty unacceptable?
Personally I lean on the "I am the final arbiter of my purchasing decisions" side, but surely this principle would have to be applied consistently (and what this looks like is I have bought almost nothing online ever)
Personally I lean on the "I am the final arbiter of my purchasing decisions" side, but surely this principle would have to be applied consistently (and what this looks like is I have bought almost nothing online ever)
Lootboxes aren't a form of dishonesty. It's a form of gambling. Gambling needs to be regulated, because that specifically does abuse psychology, whereas when you're buying a product, you know exactly what you're getting. There's no deception there, unless there is, in which case we have laws against it, because it's called false advertisement. We have laws against gambling, because we know how math works and the human mind doesn't by default.
[deleted]
There goes that nasty evil legacy language, "It wasn't my lack of programming skills and cognitive short falls that caused an exploit in internet-critical software ... it was C's lack of memory safety. I'm completely innocent and would never make bad decisions of my own accord ..."
And ask yourself-- who benefits the most from the borrow checker? Because it's sure not John Q. Programmer ...
And ask yourself-- who benefits the most from the borrow checker? Because it's sure not John Q. Programmer ...
Humans are humans. Living creatures driven by emotions and irrational behavior. Each person has his/her own psychological weaknesses. You included. Hardcore capitalists included. These kinds of marketing techniques take advantage of those weaknesses to increase their revenue. I would argue that similar weaknesses drive sick people to do horrible stuff to increase their wealth and power.
Blaming consumers for their lack of self control is pure hypocrisy. Where do you think sellers got their desire to get so much money ? From their own lack of self control.
A rational mind does not need or desire millions of dollars. It needs what it requires to live a happy life : food, health, social interactions (quality & quantity). Anything else is pure irrational, pulsion driven excessive desires.
Blaming consumers for their lack of self control is pure hypocrisy. Where do you think sellers got their desire to get so much money ? From their own lack of self control.
A rational mind does not need or desire millions of dollars. It needs what it requires to live a happy life : food, health, social interactions (quality & quantity). Anything else is pure irrational, pulsion driven excessive desires.
Btw, I also rationally require opportunities to learn, live in a nice neighborhood, travel sometimes, buy a good musical instrument, maintain a car etc. You are oversimplifying things, but I get your point.
Nice that the editor was at least allowed to point out that their own employer employs many of these "dark patterns".