The New York Times published an article that criticizes dark patterns.<p>They call out several companies that uses dark patterns, but fail to mention how hard it is to unsubscribe to the New York Times (only by talking to a person).<p>That's unfair. It's ok for the NYT to write an article about it. I'm sure the reporter is not responsible for NYT's unsubscribe flow. But if you call-out other companies, have the decency to mention your own company.<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/dark-pattern-internet-ecommerce-regulation.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/dark-pattern-inte...</a>
Another comment:
The article mention big "sign up" banners as a dark patterns. I don't think it is.<p>a dark pattern is either (i) getting the user to do something they don't intent to do, or (ii) preventing the user from doing something.<p>A big sign up banner might be poor/aggressive design, but as long as users choose to click on it, it's not a dark pattern
Suppose I am an alcoholic drinking myself to death, and my friend is as well. I tell my friend that he should stop drinking.<p>That would make me a hypocrite, but it wouldn't make me wrong. Pointing out hypocrisy to 'dunk on' people is rarely a persuasive rebuttal.
Did anyone write to the NYT about this? "Letters to the editor" seems a more useful place for feedback than this, or the previous blog post.<p>(I can't check, I'm not a subscriber.)
My first reaction was - wait, that's just an opinion piece - you can't draw strong conclusions from that. However, the author's byline says "member of the editorial board". So you have a point. And I'm sure nearly all of us agree with you about the NYT unsubscribe.<p>But there's not enough information here for a substantive discussion [1]. It's just going to be a generic thread, and we try to avoid those [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...</a>
It's one opinion article. The New York Times does self-report and self-criticize. And to be clear: the NYT did not write the article. One writer wrote about it.<p>Single opinion articles are not representative of the sum of their publisher. And thank god for that...<p>That said, their unsubscribe process (and some of the stories) is the only thing preventing me from subscribing. I would subscribe if it were easier to cancel or pause the subscription. I wish they'd get that sorted, especially since they killed their Apple News contract.<p>That applies anywhere though: if I can subscribe with a click or two, the unsubscribe process should follow the same pattern.
It is an old tradition of newspapers to point the finger at others when your side is doing the same or worse. They still have the hubris to call it journalism.
Rules for thee, but not for me.<p>The New York Times lied us into the Iraq War. They are a consent factory. We keep assuming someone is immune to the human condition because of their title. Journalists are human beings. They want to eat, drink and have a roof like all the other humans. Doctors. Scientists. Politicians.<p>We are all humans. We are all subject to the same laws of nature.<p>The NY Times is corrupted by the same laws of nature as medicine, science and politicians.<p>We are broken. We have to accept that before we can fix us.