[dragonwriter]

> I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary.

If the dark patterns empirically work, then a market context shift is necessary.

> We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the user actually feeling good about how they were duped.

If they had enough of a "bad edge" that they didn't actually work to increase the returns realized by a business--then they wouldn't be an issue, as there'd be no incentive to use them.

[PeterisP]

1) Dark patterns do empirically work, that's the whole point.

2) Market won't magically shift - they work based on homo sapiens basic psychology, and that won't change so soon. However, dark patterns can (and are) reduced by making them illegal - effective consumer protection / truthful advertising laws can mitigate them. For example, if 'I agree' opt-out boxes are legally considered invalid, then it makes sense to use opt-in subscriptions; similarly for other [mis]representations.

[jleader]

Sometimes the "bad edge" effect is cumulative over time. This can lead to a new entrant to the market suddenly gaining a lot of market share, because so many people have gotten fed up with the dominant player. So maybe the dark patterns work well, until suddenly they nose-dive, because everyone's switched to the less annoying alternative.

A/B testing only tells you what works today, not what's going to keep your customers satisfied in the long run.