As you are seeing on the Web.
This article from The Conversation really resonated with me. For as the online world is advancing, so too is the darker side of the Web.
Here is that article.
ooOOoo
Dark patterns on the web are designed to manipulate you – why aren’t they all illegal?
Gregory M. Dickinson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies
You open a free app to do one simple thing. Before you even start, a full-screen message asks whether you want to try the paid version. The “Start free trial” button is large, bright and hard to miss. The option to keep using the free version is smaller, buried at the bottom. The same prompt appears again tomorrow. And the day after that.
A lot of people look at screens like that and think, “Surely this has to be illegal.” We even have a name for them, “dark patterns.” They feel pushy. They waste time. They seem designed to wear you down. But in most cases, they are perfectly lawful.
“Dark pattern” is not a legal term with a clear boundary. It is a broad label for digital designs that nudge, pressure, confuse or trap users. As a legal scholar who studies consumer protection and digital design, I think the most important thing for readers to understand is that the label “dark pattern” covers a broad spectrum.
Some of that spectrum is just annoying. Some of it is aggressive salesmanship. And some of it crosses the line into deception or coercion. Federal and state consumer protection laws are mostly aimed at that last category. They do not ban every design choice people dislike, only those that trick or coerce.
Annoying isn’t illegal
That reality may sound unsatisfying, but it is not unusual. Offline life is full of things that are irritating but not unlawful. Think of the cashier who asks whether you want to sign up for the store credit card, then points out the discount you are turning down, then asks again. Most people know exactly what is happening. They roll their eyes, say no and try to shop somewhere else next time.
The same is true online. A repeated pop-up can be obnoxious. A guilt-inducing button can be tacky. But consumers recognize ordinary annoyance for what it is. In many cases, the market answer is simple: Close the app, ignore the pitch or take your business elsewhere.
Similarly, law does not ban persuasive sales pitches just because they are effective. A car salesperson who keeps steering you toward the upgraded model is trying to influence your choice. So is the airline clerk who offers travel insurance. So is the restaurant server who asks whether you want dessert. Salesmanship is nothing new. Digital design often borrows from familiar techniques.
That helps explain why lawmakers cannot simply outlaw “manipulation.” And so many interfaces are built to persuade, openly and lawfully.
What crosses the line
What the federal FTC Act and analogous state consumer-deception statutes usually care about is not whether a design is annoying. They focus on whether the design is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. That is the core idea in modern consumer protection law.
So a design is likelier to be unlawful when it hides key facts, makes an optional choice look mandatory or tricks people about the effect of the button they are pressing. A fake countdown timer, a disguised ad, a misleading one-click purchase button or a cancellation path that looks finished when it is not are all different from ordinary hard selling. Those designs do not just pressure users; they can deceive them.
That is also why the app maker’s intent is not always the key question. In many consumer protection cases, a company does not get a free pass just because no one said, “Let’s trick people.” The legal question is often about effect: What would a reasonable user likely understand from this screen?
Research on dark patterns reinforces that concern. Even relatively mild designs can push people into choices they would not otherwise make. And regulators have increasingly focused on subscription flows, hidden fees and cancellation obstacles for exactly that reason.
Why it feels like dark patterns are everywhere
One reason people might think there are no laws against dark patterns is that they see them so often. But that frequency reflects that the term covers a wide range of conduct, from lawful nagging to outright deception.
It also reflects enforcement limits. Regulators cannot chase every irritating screen on every app and website. They have to prioritize the worst cases. That leaves a lot of borderline conduct in the wild, which makes the whole problem feel bigger and murkier to ordinary users.
So when people ask why there is not a law against dark patterns, the best answer is that there already is, but the law does not prohibit every annoying or high-pressure design. It targets lies, misleading cues and coercive obstacles.
That line can be fuzzy. But the fuzziness is not a mistake. It is what you get when the law tries to separate persuasion from deception in a world full of both.
Gregory M. Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ooOOoo
Gregory Dickinson does us a real service. Especially when the intention is to pass on blatant mistruths.
So many people get sucked into these dark patterns. The legality of these dark matters needs to be re-examined.
Learning from Dogs 
I think it comes to this: the world is changing. We either keep in step, or we lose the ability to navigate. As always, the choice is to take the time to figure something out, or just throw our hands up and say why doesn’t somebody do this for me. Why doesn’t somebody make this illegal. But they don’t. They don’t step in – and I wonder if they ever did. We have a government that is completely out of control, completely skewed toward obscene wealth. We are so overloaded with just navigating life these days, and I have to believe this is ‘the plan.’ If we are overwhelmed, we’re much more likely to capitulate, but in doing so, we give our power, our sovereignty, away.
We have few role models, and maybe this was always so. People are inconsistent. So we have to navigate life ourselves. Even though at times it is absolutely exhausting.
At least that’s my take on it, Paul.
LikeLike
Bela, one of my many weak points is a thorough knowledge of history. You come over as being much more conversant with the history of America than me, and I would add just not America but other western nations. That’s how I read your reply to this post. You are correct in saying that we have to navigate life ourselves. That is the personal freedom that so many of us strive for. Do you read, as in books, about the history of the western world, and if you do you have any recommendations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where do you want me to start!!!?! I mean what realm of history? I am currently listening to Michael Pye’s Edge of the World. But Howard Zinn’s book ” you can’t stay neutral on a moving train” and “The People’s History of the United States” leap to mind for you – I don’t know why. Oh my God. I don’t even know where to begin. Why don’t I give you some authors instead?
Jung Chang – MAO. – and I’ve read everything she’s written. China’s history in a way I feel compelled to understand.
Robert MacFarlane – again I’ve read everything he’s written. Most recently, the book “is a river alive?”
Brian Fagan – the little Ice Age
The sixth extinction- Elizabeth Kolbert
Atlas of a lost world – Craig Childs
I’ve also read everything this author has written. Maybe also his “Apocalyprltic Planet”
I really have to stop there because I’m sure this already will overwhelm you. And because I read copiously all the time and have for years. Funny enough, I never liked history in school as taught, because I sniffed a rat in the whole storyline.
Oh my God there are so many really really good books for their historical content, and every time I think of one, another doorway opens and dozens of books spill out. Maybe you want to start with Howard Zinn, because you asked about the US. And I get why you did. But there’s no way for me to study that singularly, without the context of the entire world. 🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a very good start. Firstly, I must examine my own bookshelves to make sure I haven’t already obtained some of the titles/authors you mention. And I understand your last sentence!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, enjoy the journey! 🌏🌺🙏
LikeLike
A slightly, and way darker slant on Internet and media manipulations:
Deliberate Tribalization In Modern Media Is Evil And Plutocratic. How To Stop It.
Why do billionaires pay so little tax? How come they employ elected officials to do as they wish, etc.? Media tribalization.
I have subscribed to the New York Times for decades. I saw the paper evolve from accepting all comments from many viewpoints to restricting comments to the same opinion, what one could call the NYT tribe (it is affected with obsessive, frantic Trumpophobia)).
In the process of restricting opinions allowed for publication in the NYT many good commenters disappeared, never to be seen again. During the march to the Biden-Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003, some NYT journalists cooperated with the White House to produce fake data (Judith Miller was a famous one). I naturally disagreed, so I got strictly banned from the NYT commentariat for ten years. Thousands of comments of mine went unpublished, none got through.
Then the senior editor retired, his son succeeded him and that day a comment of mine appeared as I had hoped it would (I was sending comments all along). When the NYT senior people are asked they pretend that, for ten years all their writers found my comments unacceptable… Until the magic succession day.
The NYT, and a large part of the media in the USAallow only some types of opinions, comments and assorted facts.
An effect is to divide public opinion in two extremely hostile camps. And that is exactly the effect the billionaire owners want to see.
Once public opinion is divided, the public can attack itself… And not bother the owners of the media with effective critique of their ways and means.
Another effect is that division creates hate and fear. Such terrible passions keep individuals engaged, and they keep on coming back to the media, or site, or influencer.
These diversionary and dividing techniques have proven rewarding to the ownership class, and keep on getting worse every year.
Another method is to deliberately under expose or hide essays, articles, comments, etc. which are uncomfortable for the established order.
***
Remedies exist: Isegoria and Parrhesia: the right to address anyone equally, and the ability and duty to speak one’s mind, unafraid. The Ancient Greeks viewed both as two pillars of democracy. They also existed in Rome, under the Democratic Republic
***
An application would force any media (including Internet influencers) to publish any comment (except if there was a very good reason not to publish it, justifiable in court). Thanks to AI and Internet Passports comments could be monitored for authenticity (AI could detect deliberate sabotage and manipulation through comments).
***.
That de-censoring would mitigate tribalization
Patrice Ayme
LikeLike