My favorite “dark pattern” is when you close a tab with items in your cart and a burner email associated, then a couple days later they email a promo code.
Yeah sometimes you can use this one to your advantage though. If was buying something recently and the website was just giving off those types of vibes, so I went to the checkout and bailed. Next day, got a reminder. Three days later, discount offer. One week later, slightly better discount offer.
The killer these days is places demanding your email prior to giving you a shipping estimate. Particularly annoying if you live somewhere where shipping costs vary greatly between providers.
I hate hate hate this - especially because my browser autofills my email with my address. My flow is to autofill, then go back and change the email to gibberish. Sometimes that doesn't work and I get some un-asked for promotion anyway.
I think I should have to at least click a button for some company to be able to send me what is clearly a marketing email.
Countdown timers and ‘Only 4 left’ are often scams, but they should note a few sites like eBay get a pass since for simply giving true facts about the auction.
Buy-It-Now combined with an auction is exactly like selling a car listed with O.B.O. (e g. ”$5000 or best offer"). This doesn't seem like a dark pattern to me for either side of the transaction.
That's not really whataboutism. They're not justifying it, they're supplementing the relevant point by saying development in areas of moral controversy are quite common even in more controversial areas.
How does irrelevant information supplement the point? It's only a distraction.
Your interpretation of their post seems quite generous. They made a single statement, and didn't back it up with anything like what you are saying they did.
So it really is a whataboutism: "Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic that attempts to deflect criticism or avoid addressing a point by responding with a counter-accusation or question about someone else or something else, often unrelated to the original issue".
"Weapons manufacturing" has nothing to do with "website creation". It is a whataboutism.
One I had to face was, they put a tiny dot over the close button on a dialog box, so when you try to close it, you're actually clicking the dot. You really have to notice the dot to avoid it and actually click the close button.
I uninstalled the app, and left a review, but knowing the company, I don't think they'll ever fix it.
Some things can be mitigated by avoiding CSS and JavaScripts in web pages. My idea of a "computer payment file" can also mitigate some of them (such as hidden costs, especially hidden recurring costs). Forced continuity and some kind of hidden costs probably should be made illegal, though (although there are the details to be considered; the laws should not be made excessive). Someone who uses such a deception could also be given a bad reputation, independently from laws, but it would be necessary to avoid a monopoly, too. Other things could also be done, such as client software on computers to be designed better, and making that you should not require specific types of computers (or, in some cases, any computer, or any internet connection) for many important things.
I appreciate the dark pattern enumeration here - but, as an American, I find it strange that the Australian Government needs to get involved with this PSA.
As a fellow American, wouldn’t it be similar to the FDA putting out a PSA about what baby formula should be avoided?[1] Or warning of the dangers of benzone contamination in sunscreen?[2] Or the CFPB putting out a PSA on responsible credit card practices?
Seems like we have government PSAs too if I’m understanding the comment correctly.
What I put in my mind and what I put in my body should not be regulated in the same way. I definitely want the FDA to monitor food and drugs and prevent me from getting sick.
It would be similar to your local state's attorney general, since this is from a state government in Australia.
NSW has a similar population to Washington State, for example.
> This page describes common dark patterns you will encounter online, so you can identify and avoid them when shopping online.
I don't know about it being from the Attorney General but that seems like something Washington's government might want to announce to the state's residents.
Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws. Because of the high cost of running a business in Australia, especially one that involves physical goods, Australians are buying ever more things from overseas over the Internet, which means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to Australian law.
Australian governments also take a very paternalistic approach to dealing with their citizens. This stems from Australia's history as a set of penal colonies.
> Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws.
Infamous if you are a USA business looking to enter Australia, maybe? I have seen some hilarious examples of what overseas companies expecting to be able to treat Australian customers the same was they treat USA citizens, like the top half http://www.hp.com.au loudly proclaiming they do NOT honour their warranties. (Well, as the link to the ACCC explained, they did, but only if you battled your way through a thicket of dark patterns.) But, after the lesson is learned, major foreign companies do seem honour the letter of their warranties in Australia. It must suck to be one of their customers outside of Australia.
Bupa appears to be in the process of learning the same lesson, after a decade of being pricks to deal with. I'm with them. Not by choice. My USA employer pays for health insurance, and that's what they give you. It saves me 1000's a year, but OMG, Bupa make repeated mistakes that are always in their favour, they don't respond when it's pointed out, when they are forced to respond because of repeated phone calls they outright lie. It took me 3 months to get $200 out of them. I did it out of spite in the end, because the $200 wasn't worth the amount of time they made me spend. And now, surprise, surprise: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/bupa-in-court-for-unco...
> which means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to Australian law
Yep. I was one of them. I did that, and then got bitten, over and over again. Now one of the first things I look for in a company I'm buying off is "do they have an ABN (Australia Business Number" (It's a tax ID.) If they do, they are subject to Australia law, and the risk is at a level I find acceptable. If they don't it's a complete lottery. Even for cheap things. It's not just the lost money, it's the time you waste in dealing with these people, the days of correspondence before you realise they aren't acting in good faith. You then re-order somewhere local, but now you've lost weeks. It's why I buy domains through an Australia mob like https://ventraip.com.au/. Yes I've found foreign companies that have provided me the same, if not better service at a better price. But if every case, that small foreign firm got bought out by some bigger company, and I found myself in dark pattern hell.
There are exceptions of course. Sites like amazon, ebay and alibaba enforce very similar rules on the suppliers they allow onto their platforms. But outside of those platforms, if I have to deal with a company outside of Australia, the first question I ask myself is "am I prepared to throw this money away if it all goes sour". It's not a question I bother asking myself when dealing with an Australia company.
Nothing about this is regional to Australia. Every government should put out this kind of PSA. Dark patterns make everything worse in the long term for short term gain.
It's a good point. Everyone living in Australia knows what "NSW" means, and it's a website that's almost always only used by people living in the state. Except for a page on dark patterns :)
Same blindspot as Americans using two-letter codes for their states (AZ etc.), or any other country's inhabitants using locally-known place names, or not adding their country after it.
Googling '"new south wales" site:www.nsw.gov.au', some pages have it apparently written out in full, but clicking through to the e.g. "State Flag" page, they've updated the page to say "NSW"!
A "nanny state" is a government that stops YOU from doing something (which Australia does a lot by Western standards). But what you're describing is market regulation.
"Dark pattern" is specific to digital user interfaces, the bartender use case might be just called emotional marketing or, more plainly, flattery.
Keep in mind, digital or not, not all forms of negatively viewed tactics hold the same weight. E.g. a nagging confirmation for cancellation is typically viewed less negatively than confirm shaming, even though both are often listed as types of dark patterns. The type of coercion in the bartender example is likely towards the less negative side of manipulative tactics in most people's minds.
Just half-serious here when musing: not in any practical sense, but philosophically perhaps. The bartender is in the Hospitality business, and assuming that the essence of that business is genuine hospitality, there is no dark pattern if the compliment and wink are genuine. But if they are just a marketing gimmick that the bartender pulls at every table like a used cars salesman, then it is a deception pattern.
If you're sitting at the bar, you're likely waiting to be served anyway. It might get the bartender a bigger tip, which is a transaction I'm okay with.
to me, dark patterns were not the means, but the goals: the cognitive patterns that are established and reinforced after all the methods have been successfully applied.
[hop]
when all those little spikes compound while you ingest global and national news and those backpacking friends from Russia, Ukraine and Cambodia come home ^^, for example ...
[hop]
and we thought Machiavelli et al wrote so we could understand, when they really just established patterns that could be matched with little effort
Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too.
Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
Indeed there's racism in many forms, shapes, and sizes. At what point should it be addressed, and where? I am certainly no expert here. What I observe in society when it comes to cultural change in general is that often a change is set in by a particular group who trigger a kind of overreaction on the theme by their activism, which in turn leads to severe resistance by others, followed by some 'middle road' becoming the new cultural norm over time. This can take many years.
You saw that with feminism, where at some point many fierce feminists held quite extreme views on the desired role of men in society. The vanguard opened the way, and then during many years feminist ideas started to permeate into every day society. On racism, Black Pete the helper of Saint Nicholas in a yearly children's festivity in the Netherlands, is an example where initially practically no one thought it racist. Until it was made a theme by activists. Now a couple years later about 3 quarters of the country see soot-faced Pete's (from the chimney through which they dispatch gifts), while a third clings to tradition with black face Pete and the argument "it isn't racist, and never was".
My friend's brother got fired for saying something at work, except HR would not tell him what it was he said. Instead, they gave him a pamphlet filled with "problematic" phrases and suggested alternatives; it was many pages and may or may not have even contained his particular unsanctioned phrase. Who knows.
Included in the pamphlet were phrases such as (with minimal paraphrasing) "that falls on deaf ears", which offends the deaf community, "this is a blind spot", which offends blind people, "we're coming up short on that", which offends short people, "that's a tall order", which offends tall people, and more.
I'm really hard pressed to accept that on the off chance someone gets upset about their height because someone uses distance or length to compare two concepts in a work meeting, that it should be anyone's problem other than that person.
I feel similarly about words like "dark", or "whitelist/blacklist", which have documented nonracial etymology, etc. At some point we draw the line, but we draw it to reject absurdity, not to embrace it.
I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc. instead of finding ever more ways to pat ourselves on the back for minimal effort.
> I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc.
As most people do. Guess all of that will happen simultaneously in the chaotic cauldron of society, including language evolution to that happy middle ground over time when terms find common well-accepted meaning.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.
My favorite “dark pattern” is when you close a tab with items in your cart and a burner email associated, then a couple days later they email a promo code.
Yeah sometimes you can use this one to your advantage though. If was buying something recently and the website was just giving off those types of vibes, so I went to the checkout and bailed. Next day, got a reminder. Three days later, discount offer. One week later, slightly better discount offer.
The killer these days is places demanding your email prior to giving you a shipping estimate. Particularly annoying if you live somewhere where shipping costs vary greatly between providers.
I hate hate hate this - especially because my browser autofills my email with my address. My flow is to autofill, then go back and change the email to gibberish. Sometimes that doesn't work and I get some un-asked for promotion anyway.
I think I should have to at least click a button for some company to be able to send me what is clearly a marketing email.
Not allowed in Europe, afaik.
Countdown timers and ‘Only 4 left’ are often scams, but they should note a few sites like eBay get a pass since for simply giving true facts about the auction.
Isn't an auction itself a giant dark pattern?
Also, ebay mixes auction with buy it now in the same item.
Buy-It-Now combined with an auction is exactly like selling a car listed with O.B.O. (e g. ”$5000 or best offer"). This doesn't seem like a dark pattern to me for either side of the transaction.
I like it a lot. I either want something NAOW and don't mind a slightly higher price than I'd pay if I waited a few days.
Auctions are great price discovery mechanisms. Nothing wrong with that IMO
Only if you consider voluntary interpersonal economics a dark pattern
I agree that all of these are dark patterns that have been folded into most websites.
We should not implement these patterns, or allow them to be implemented unchallenged.
I think I would find it hard to stomach implementing many commonly seen dark patterns in software. But someone must be implementing them.
Plenty of people work in weapon manufacturing or other jobs that bring way more harm to people than a website popup.
That your thing is bad and should be opposed doesn’t mean another thing is also bad and ought be opposed
whataboutism, in display. Off topic comment that will derail conversation.
That's not really whataboutism. They're not justifying it, they're supplementing the relevant point by saying development in areas of moral controversy are quite common even in more controversial areas.
How does irrelevant information supplement the point? It's only a distraction.
Your interpretation of their post seems quite generous. They made a single statement, and didn't back it up with anything like what you are saying they did.
So it really is a whataboutism: "Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic that attempts to deflect criticism or avoid addressing a point by responding with a counter-accusation or question about someone else or something else, often unrelated to the original issue".
"Weapons manufacturing" has nothing to do with "website creation". It is a whataboutism.
One I had to face was, they put a tiny dot over the close button on a dialog box, so when you try to close it, you're actually clicking the dot. You really have to notice the dot to avoid it and actually click the close button.
I uninstalled the app, and left a review, but knowing the company, I don't think they'll ever fix it.
Some things can be mitigated by avoiding CSS and JavaScripts in web pages. My idea of a "computer payment file" can also mitigate some of them (such as hidden costs, especially hidden recurring costs). Forced continuity and some kind of hidden costs probably should be made illegal, though (although there are the details to be considered; the laws should not be made excessive). Someone who uses such a deception could also be given a bad reputation, independently from laws, but it would be necessary to avoid a monopoly, too. Other things could also be done, such as client software on computers to be designed better, and making that you should not require specific types of computers (or, in some cases, any computer, or any internet connection) for many important things.
If you want to see dark patterns in action in the US, visit any fitness, diet, weight-loss, vitamin and supplement website.
CEOs, CMOs and marketers prioritize the “abandoned cart”. It’s just business.
I appreciate the dark pattern enumeration here - but, as an American, I find it strange that the Australian Government needs to get involved with this PSA.
As a fellow American, wouldn’t it be similar to the FDA putting out a PSA about what baby formula should be avoided?[1] Or warning of the dangers of benzone contamination in sunscreen?[2] Or the CFPB putting out a PSA on responsible credit card practices?
Seems like we have government PSAs too if I’m understanding the comment correctly.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-informatio...
[2] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
What I put in my mind and what I put in my body should not be regulated in the same way. I definitely want the FDA to monitor food and drugs and prevent me from getting sick.
It would be similar to your local state's attorney general, since this is from a state government in Australia. NSW has a similar population to Washington State, for example.
> This page describes common dark patterns you will encounter online, so you can identify and avoid them when shopping online.
I don't know about it being from the Attorney General but that seems like something Washington's government might want to announce to the state's residents.
[dead]
Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws. Because of the high cost of running a business in Australia, especially one that involves physical goods, Australians are buying ever more things from overseas over the Internet, which means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to Australian law.
Australian governments also take a very paternalistic approach to dealing with their citizens. This stems from Australia's history as a set of penal colonies.
> Australia has infamously robust consumer protection laws.
Infamous if you are a USA business looking to enter Australia, maybe? I have seen some hilarious examples of what overseas companies expecting to be able to treat Australian customers the same was they treat USA citizens, like the top half http://www.hp.com.au loudly proclaiming they do NOT honour their warranties. (Well, as the link to the ACCC explained, they did, but only if you battled your way through a thicket of dark patterns.) But, after the lesson is learned, major foreign companies do seem honour the letter of their warranties in Australia. It must suck to be one of their customers outside of Australia.
Bupa appears to be in the process of learning the same lesson, after a decade of being pricks to deal with. I'm with them. Not by choice. My USA employer pays for health insurance, and that's what they give you. It saves me 1000's a year, but OMG, Bupa make repeated mistakes that are always in their favour, they don't respond when it's pointed out, when they are forced to respond because of repeated phone calls they outright lie. It took me 3 months to get $200 out of them. I did it out of spite in the end, because the $200 wasn't worth the amount of time they made me spend. And now, surprise, surprise: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/bupa-in-court-for-unco...
> which means more exposure to retailers and subscription services that have no Australian presence and therefore can't be subjected to Australian law
Yep. I was one of them. I did that, and then got bitten, over and over again. Now one of the first things I look for in a company I'm buying off is "do they have an ABN (Australia Business Number" (It's a tax ID.) If they do, they are subject to Australia law, and the risk is at a level I find acceptable. If they don't it's a complete lottery. Even for cheap things. It's not just the lost money, it's the time you waste in dealing with these people, the days of correspondence before you realise they aren't acting in good faith. You then re-order somewhere local, but now you've lost weeks. It's why I buy domains through an Australia mob like https://ventraip.com.au/. Yes I've found foreign companies that have provided me the same, if not better service at a better price. But if every case, that small foreign firm got bought out by some bigger company, and I found myself in dark pattern hell.
There are exceptions of course. Sites like amazon, ebay and alibaba enforce very similar rules on the suppliers they allow onto their platforms. But outside of those platforms, if I have to deal with a company outside of Australia, the first question I ask myself is "am I prepared to throw this money away if it all goes sour". It's not a question I bother asking myself when dealing with an Australia company.
Nothing about this is regional to Australia. Every government should put out this kind of PSA. Dark patterns make everything worse in the long term for short term gain.
New South Wales Government, not Australia. So even more strange, because I doubt NSW could do much re the Australian Consumer Law.
Funnily, it never states it's New South Wales. Even on the "About NSW" page, NSW is never written out.
It's a good point. Everyone living in Australia knows what "NSW" means, and it's a website that's almost always only used by people living in the state. Except for a page on dark patterns :)
Same blindspot as Americans using two-letter codes for their states (AZ etc.), or any other country's inhabitants using locally-known place names, or not adding their country after it.
Haha, how curious.
Googling '"new south wales" site:www.nsw.gov.au', some pages have it apparently written out in full, but clicking through to the e.g. "State Flag" page, they've updated the page to say "NSW"!
Right; if they want to get involved, they should go all the way and start fining the hell out of them.
Australia is a nanny state. They will attempt to regulate these dark patterns next.
A "nanny state" is a government that stops YOU from doing something (which Australia does a lot by Western standards). But what you're describing is market regulation.
GOOD!
These NEED to be regulated HEAVILY.
Dark patterns make everything worse, there is no valid reason to use them. NONE.
Short term gains from such patterns do not offset the harms these patterns cause.
the market learns, then judges you
and that would be bad?
"Was I born too late for the golden days of my nanny state"
Open question: if a bartender greets you with a compliment and a wink, and then proceeds to sell you a cocktail, is it a dark pattern?
"Dark pattern" is specific to digital user interfaces, the bartender use case might be just called emotional marketing or, more plainly, flattery.
Keep in mind, digital or not, not all forms of negatively viewed tactics hold the same weight. E.g. a nagging confirmation for cancellation is typically viewed less negatively than confirm shaming, even though both are often listed as types of dark patterns. The type of coercion in the bartender example is likely towards the less negative side of manipulative tactics in most people's minds.
i think they know that and are just being cheeky for affect.
however, URL dark patterns are the digital equivalent of IRL social engineering.
Just half-serious here when musing: not in any practical sense, but philosophically perhaps. The bartender is in the Hospitality business, and assuming that the essence of that business is genuine hospitality, there is no dark pattern if the compliment and wink are genuine. But if they are just a marketing gimmick that the bartender pulls at every table like a used cars salesman, then it is a deception pattern.
If you're sitting at the bar, you're likely waiting to be served anyway. It might get the bartender a bigger tip, which is a transaction I'm okay with.
If he talked the whole time about making a mojito, then gave you a water
Dimly lit
[dead]
to me, dark patterns were not the means, but the goals: the cognitive patterns that are established and reinforced after all the methods have been successfully applied.
[hop]
when all those little spikes compound while you ingest global and national news and those backpacking friends from Russia, Ukraine and Cambodia come home ^^, for example ...
[hop]
and we thought Machiavelli et al wrote so we could understand, when they really just established patterns that could be matched with little effort
[flagged]
This one is a stretch. 'Dark pattern' makes me think of something like a burglar hiding in the darkness of shadows or nighttime, not race.
And the website in question is hosted by the Australian government, American censorship doesn't come into the picture..
Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too. Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
> Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though
Yes, I use blocklist / allowlist myself, without the dashes.
> Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better.
Good example. I agree. Using the most descriptive variant is a good practice then, and no need to fall back to a vaguer container concept.
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
Indeed there's racism in many forms, shapes, and sizes. At what point should it be addressed, and where? I am certainly no expert here. What I observe in society when it comes to cultural change in general is that often a change is set in by a particular group who trigger a kind of overreaction on the theme by their activism, which in turn leads to severe resistance by others, followed by some 'middle road' becoming the new cultural norm over time. This can take many years.
You saw that with feminism, where at some point many fierce feminists held quite extreme views on the desired role of men in society. The vanguard opened the way, and then during many years feminist ideas started to permeate into every day society. On racism, Black Pete the helper of Saint Nicholas in a yearly children's festivity in the Netherlands, is an example where initially practically no one thought it racist. Until it was made a theme by activists. Now a couple years later about 3 quarters of the country see soot-faced Pete's (from the chimney through which they dispatch gifts), while a third clings to tradition with black face Pete and the argument "it isn't racist, and never was".
Where does it end?
My friend's brother got fired for saying something at work, except HR would not tell him what it was he said. Instead, they gave him a pamphlet filled with "problematic" phrases and suggested alternatives; it was many pages and may or may not have even contained his particular unsanctioned phrase. Who knows.
Included in the pamphlet were phrases such as (with minimal paraphrasing) "that falls on deaf ears", which offends the deaf community, "this is a blind spot", which offends blind people, "we're coming up short on that", which offends short people, "that's a tall order", which offends tall people, and more.
I'm really hard pressed to accept that on the off chance someone gets upset about their height because someone uses distance or length to compare two concepts in a work meeting, that it should be anyone's problem other than that person.
I feel similarly about words like "dark", or "whitelist/blacklist", which have documented nonracial etymology, etc. At some point we draw the line, but we draw it to reject absurdity, not to embrace it.
I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc. instead of finding ever more ways to pat ourselves on the back for minimal effort.
> I'd much prefer we spend all this time and organizational effort actually tackling racial inequality, dismantling racial infrastructure, implementing reparations, etc.
As most people do. Guess all of that will happen simultaneously in the chaotic cauldron of society, including language evolution to that happy middle ground over time when terms find common well-accepted meaning.
I agree that "dark pattern" does not to me think of race, either, but I think that "deceptive design" is a better word anyways.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.