[ieeamo]

Amazon is one of the scammy shopping sites this articles discusses - it’s listed in the dataset.

I’d wager that many of the dark patterns persist because Amazon use them, making their justification inside smaller companies easier.

[iujjkfjdkkdkf]

(My experience is with amazon.ca) Amazon is filled with the kinds of deception that the article discusses.

I dont have prime and the whole UI is set up to trick me into getting prime.

I always buy enough to get free shipping (which they show with a big banner), but it always defaults to paid shipping, that often needs to be removed item by item.

More often than not, books I search for default to kindle, and I have actually been tricked into buying a kindle version before.

They hide the fact that you are buying from a reseller as much as they can.

I could go on, but the point is I agree with you entirely.

[marcinzm]

As of 2012 Amazon sells more Kindle books than physical books in the UK. I suspect that hasn't changed since then. So I'd argue defaulting to kindle is the right product decision as it's the option the majority of users want.

Amazon Prime on the other hand is definitely a dark pattern.

[iujjkfjdkkdkf]

Amazon has 15 years of shopping history from me that includes multiple physical books each month and 0 kindle purchases. Its possible they don't consider that and default to kindle for everyone, but they at least have the info to know that kindle versions are not what I'm after.

[_jal]

Exactly so.

Amazon is incredibly good at converting consumer surveillance data in to money. They could easily default this (and many other things) to sensible per-user values. Given their competence and attention to detail, the reasonable guess here is that playing dumb on this default pays better than doing right by the user.

[FalconSensei]

Maybe what's happening is: if you have a Kindle (you bough it form Amazon - or you bought kindle books on your account), they assume is likely you want a kindle version. If you don't have a Kindle, they want to show you how cheaper the Kindle version is, and maybe you will end up buying a Kindle.

[devlopr]

Could Amazon be selling more kindle ebooks because of the policy that selects it as a default?

At this point you couldn't switch back.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They sell more e-books because the publishing industry colluded to jack up the price of paperbacks so that $10 e-books look like a bargain. I'm not paying $15 for a physical book that would have been $5 15 years ago. Their production overhead has been dramatically lowered by digital distribution and I'm expected to pay more?

[yabudemada]

I think it's the convenience for both buyers and sellers. If readers want the book "now" they get the kindle version; if they want it later they get the physical copy. However, Kindle in general is a dark pattern: it forces users to be locked into their product ecosystem.

[hansvm]

> I don't have prime and the whole UI is set up to trick me into getting prime.

Back when I was still in college they offered a "6 month trial" of Prime Student. I agreed, made a mental note to cancel it in 5 months, and was shocked to find the next day that my card had been charged. There weren't any purchase screens, any terms to agree to, or anything to indicate that the trial they were peddling was in fact just an ordinary Prime Student subscription which would then renew in 6 months.

[morsch]

They hide the fact that you are buying from a reseller as much as they can.

I mean, it says Sold by X and Fulfilled by Amazon right under the add to basket/buy buttons. It's repeated on the order summary. I'm aware people keep missing this, but I don't really get it.

[joshuak]

If you are not buying from Amazon, then nothing on the entire page should imply that you are.

Why is this not obvious to us? It wasn't to me either. There has got to be some cognitive bias at play here to lead to our acceptance of inverted principles like this. The framing of the problem is completely inverted, yet we're pretty much okay with that.

If it's not clear what I'm talking about here's another example:

"Why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?"

This is also a reframing that presumes I do not have privacy and therefore bare the burden to prove I need it. People accept this frame and attempt to argue it directly all the time, when they should really just say "Why do you need to take it?" The burden of proof is on the taker.

Neither the buyer nor the seller should be so accepting of Amazon's attempt to obfuscate the actual parties involved in the sale. Amazon is just the payment processor and possibly providing storage and shipping services.

A real world analogy would be if every store that accepts VISA looked like a VISA store.

[throwawayboise]

I'd wager that a lot of people don't know what that means, as opposed to:

You are buying this from X. Amazon is only processing the payment.

And there's probably a way to word that even more clearly...

[thaumasiotes]

> More often than not, books I search for default to kindle, and I have actually been tricked into buying a kindle version before.

This can't really be something Amazon is intentionally trying to trick you into doing. There's no way for you not to notice that it happened, and you can just return the kindle book.

[judge2020]

> that often needs to be removed item by item.

In general you just need to change it for each shipment - if multiple items are grouped together [because they're all at the same warehouse) then changing one shipment will change the shipping speed of all items within it. They probably should be defaulting to free shipping when it's available, though.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They don't always default to the cheapest option. This happens more often when they're trying to steer you into selecting a Prime subscription.

[judge2020]

I meant 'should' as in 'this is how it should be, but isn't currently', I fully agree with you.

[6chars]

I'm not saying they aren't. What I'm trying to get across is that people are more used to and, therefore, inured to their dark patterns. There's a learning curve for navigating any website's dark patterns, so I'm more comfortable using a site whose dark patterns I believe I can recognize and avoid than one I haven't used before and am consequently more likely to be victimized by.

I'm definitely overestimating my own ability to avoid Amazon's scammy tactics. I, like most people, am reluctant to admit that I'm vulnerable to manipulation by things like these dark patterns (and ads, PR, etc.). But since I'm talking about my subjective feelings towards the websites, I think how good I _feel_ I am is relevant.

I totally agree with everything you've said, but just want to clarify my initial comment. I'm not trying to let Amazon off the hook, though they are less problematic than almost all of the other examples in the article.

[tyingq]

One example is their "subscriptions" to products. It's very easy to accidentally order a recurring subscription to a shipped physical product, rather than just a one-time purchase.

[jimmaswell]

I just looked and subscriptions are very clearly labeled every step of the way, not even an attempt to be tricky that I can see.

[tyingq]

It's possible they've changed it since I last accidentally did that, or perhaps I'm just dense :)

[notdang]

I usually take advantage of this to lower the price by 10% and then cancel the subscription.

[marcinzm]

It's listed ONCE in the dataset due to a product option defaulting to the most expensive version. A very minor dark pattern I'd argue.

[ieeamo]

Why the downvote? Amazon has consistently been flagged for excessive use of Dark patterns, e.g. [1].

[1] https://www.uxukawards.com/best-dark-ux/