Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That, and they paid money to surreptitiously bundle it with other software. Chrome is notorious for suddenly being mysteriously installed on relatives' computers: https://imgur.com/NIZk9Pd

And advertising something on your own property sure sounds reasonable, but I think it's a slightly different story when "your own property" is "the de facto homepage of the internet". That's what I meant by "abusing monopoly position".



That's not a dark pattern though. Potentially poor behavior, sure, but dark pattern, no.


"Complete your antivirus" has a pre-checked tickbox for a totally irrelevant product. And in the process agreeing to a license. That's pretty dark.

Maybe as someone with above-average technical ability this looks obvious to you. To a lot of people, it isn't. And this pattern is aimed at fooling the less technically literate.


Agreeing to a license in the EU requires an affirmative action (i.e. pre-ticked checkboxes are automatically a fail to comply)

The requirements to have unticked checkboxes predates GDPR.


yes it is, dark patterns refer to user-design decissions that arguably exploit human-weaknesses. In this case human-attention span (not noticing that you have to disable this option), lazyness(it costs effor to opt-out) and human confidence in authority (I trust avast with my AV, so I trust avast not to exploit my trust (but they do)).


It's example number two on the wikipedia page for dark patterns, Misdirection.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: