[lolc]

> It highlights a lack of user education

Education in what? That they shouldn't trust companies because they eavesdrop on them? Please don't blame deceitful practices on the victims.

> if they expect their typed input to a website to be private.

Most chat apps work that way. Others only see what you typed once you send it. Just because the now obscure `talk` worked differently is no excuse.

The deception starts where the agents' responses are not relayed as they type! I don't see how you could explain this asymmetry in innocent terms. It clearly benefits the shop without them being open about it.

[powercf]

> Education in what?

Education in how the web works. That typing something into a text field, or moving the mouse, or any interactions with a website can be read on the other side. Many users expect this behaviour when they use, for example, Google search or Google Translate. If users expect their text to be private in one context, but shared in another, then there is clearly a lack of understanding of how the web works.

> Please don't blame deceitful practices on the victims.

I didn't blame anyone for anything. It's not a priori deceitful. Presumably some of the motivation is to enable faster responses to client queries.

[lolc]

Just because something's technically feasible does not mean we should expect it's being done by a shop we're doing business with!

Apparently we don't have the same standards as to what constitutes deceit. To me it's enough when the chat is asymmetric in that the agent's typing is not visible until they send it but the visitor's is relayed immediately to the agent. If visitors could watch the agents type they would understand that their typing is visible on the other end.

> Presumably some of the motivation is to enable faster responses to client queries.

Sure. Then why not offer the same privilege to the client? If it's so beneficial?