(dark patterns) are such schemes of user involvement in the product, in which there is a zero-sum game: the product wins, and the consumer loses. Simply put, this is a non-illegal inducement of the user to certain actions.
As a rule, in society, morality and ethics are responsible for resolving such issues, but in technology everything moves so fast that morality and ethics simply do not have time. For example, when Google tried to set up its artificial intelligence ethics committee, it fell apart after just a week. .
The reason, in my opinion, is the following. Technology companies understand the depth of the problem, but, alas, they cannot solve it from the inside. In fact, these are two opposite vectors and intentions: 1) to meet their quarterly goals for profit, reach and engagement, and 2) to do well for citizens in the long term.
While the best minds are struggling to solve this problem, the most effective thing that has happened is (or someone pays for it: employer, sponsor, daddy). In an advertising model that trades your data, it's not easy to solve the problem.
And this is where regulators come into play. Their role is to act as a guarantor of civil liberties, morality, and ground rules (and also to come to power on the basis of populist laws in the next season). States in this sense are extremely important. The only problem is that they are very slow and extremely maladaptive: try to create a timely, progressive law. Or cancel the law if you have already adopted it, and suddenly realized that it does not work. (Time zone laws don't count.)
I must say, the appearance in the US Congress a year ago provoked a lot of interesting movement. Senators began to come up with laws that help to limit something: the distribution and use of users' personal information, the use of "dark patterns" in interfaces, and so on.
Last example: a pair of senators recently that involve people in the use of products through manipulation. How they will determine what is manipulation and what is not is unclear.
There is a very thin line between cognitive distortions, desires and intentions of different parties. In this regard, it is much easier to use a simple user than the head of a corporation, but everyone has their own cognitive distortions. And this, in many ways, is exactly what makes us human, and not just multiplying biorobots.
Comparison of market capitalization of technology companies and (2018)
In fact, it looks like the old power is freaking out over how much new tech power the new power has:
- If Facebook were a state, then it would be the largest country in terms of the number of citizens (MAU 2.2 billion), one and a half times ahead of China (1.4 billion) and India (1.3 billion). Moreover, if the leaders of de jure democratic countries are replaced every 4-8 years, in capitalism there are practically no mechanisms for removing the leader if he owns a controlling stake.
- Google now knows more about the intentions and desires of people than all the pastors, shamans, oracles and priests in the entire history of world religions. Such power over data is unparalleled in recorded human history.
- Apple makes us do amazing things: pay for a super-expensive yearly subscription to a $XNUMX PDA, for example. Try to unsubscribe: it immediately changes the perception of your social status, knocks out the reputation of an innovator, and lowers the interest of the opposite sex. (Kidding.)
- Up to 40% of the cloud infrastructure that powers the Internet Amazon (AWS). The company is the dominant supplier of the planet, and is responsible for bread, information and entertainment.
What's next? Think so:
- The US version of the GDPR is just around the corner.
- Technology companies will be subject to a series of antitrust reviews.
- Inside tech. companies will grow dissatisfied with inhumanist policies, and employees will try to influence management decisions more.
What do you think about the state regulation of product and design patterns?
Source: habr.com