The New York Times criticizes dark patterns, but fails to criticize themselves

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27120686

64 30 5 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

The New York Times published an article that criticizes dark patterns.

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).

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/30/opinion/dark-pattern-inte...

zepto• 5 years ago

This is the irony of the NYT, it is like this in pretty much every respect.

Bootstrapper909• 5 years ago

Another comment: The article mention big "sign up" banners as a dark patterns. I don't think it is.

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.

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

bourgwaletariat• 5 years ago

Rules for thee, but not for me.

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.

We are all humans. We are all subject to the same laws of nature.

The NY Times is corrupted by the same laws of nature as medicine, science and politicians.

We are broken. We have to accept that before we can fix us.

dang6• 5 years ago

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.

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].

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

nabla92• 5 years ago

Editorial board is not charge of the business of the newspaper. They are only in charge of editorial policy. The board doesn’t even speak for the newsroom.

NYT has huge institutional wall between editorial decisions and the business to keep them separate.

Here are the people running the company: https://www.nytco.com/company/people/

coliveira2• 5 years ago

But you don't need to be making decisions to see what is going on in the business of you own newspaper. They just had to do the most trivial research to see problems in their own organization. They just decided not to do it.

giantg22• 5 years ago

Is it possible that person opposes the practice but is a minority opinion on the board? They might be restricted from talking ill of the paper and are using other examples to make thier point.

dang6• 5 years ago

It's certainly possible. We'd need more information to know.

52-6F-627• 5 years ago

With respect, I work closely with editors for a couple of major Canadian publication.

The number of them who understand the subscription and unsubscribe process of any of their media properties and UX patterns enough to rule on the subject for one of their writers is probably near 0.

It's not because they don't care, or wouldn't take to concern; it's because it's a business matter and a big blind spot. They have no ruling power over it, and just generally expect subscriptions to be a resolved business matter since it has long been.

It's easy for us "tech" people to see these kinds of things; it's obvious to a lot of us because our days are consumed by it. That is not at all true for most people.

Thankfully, even with blaring blind spots, editors tend to be open for discussion—hell, they started the discussion.

I think before anyone goes off the rails, they should take a look at the NYT comments section on this article where they can see the top comments on both the All and Reader Picks tabs. There are a number of comments pointing directly back at the NYT about this issue. A lot of those comment sections, like HN, are moderated by humans: https://qr.ae/pGncF5

To me, it reads that this particular writer came upon a subject that began to concern them, did some research and put together a piece to open up a discussion. It's not a final ruling, and it's not complete (it's just an opinion after all).

To me, that seems healthy, not intellectually dishonest.

dang6• 5 years ago

Oh I agree! but the very first example that the author gives is the difficulty of canceling Amazon Prime. That's a pretty big gaffe.

I canceled Amazon Prime once; yes it was a pain, yes it "required multiple screens and clicks"—but it was nothing as abusive as having to make a phone call and (one can only expect) wait on hold for a punishing length of time.

cosmotic2• 5 years ago

did some research

How did said research not uncover the problem with NYT itself? I think that's the upsetting part.

As part of a journalistic organization, journalists and editors have some ethical responsibility to be especially rigorous about the organization they represent, similar to full disclosure. At the very least, they should acknowledge what research they performed on their own employer. This is similar to Reply All reporting on racism at BA but forgetting to reflect on their own internal structure first.

freshair2• 5 years ago

Suppose I am an alcoholic drinking myself to death, and my friend is as well. I tell my friend that he should stop drinking.

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.

amelius• 5 years ago

A better analogy would be if you told the world that your friend should stop drinking.

freshair2• 5 years ago

In this analogy I am still a hypocrite but I'm still dead-right, so sure.

SilasX• 5 years ago

I disagree. Hypocrisy allegations are expressing an important insight: "Obviously, moralizing about X isn't helpful because you know it's wrong, and you still do it", and further, "maybe you should use your special position as someone tempted to X to provide insight on what would stop you".

In your example, you're drinking yourself to death despite knowing it's stupid, and probably despite others telling you not to. Why would you think lecturing your friend helps?

Your reaction should be, "hey, what would stop me from drinking? Maybe I should try that and propose it for my friend too?"

In the NYT example, they should know why they're using the dark patterns, and what would get them to stop, and should be proposing that.

ChrisArchitect• 5 years ago

instead of posting your comments as an item, post the article and then comment! what

dang6• 5 years ago

Yup, it's generally bad to use text posts to add commentary on a link. In fact HN has always disallowed this. From the FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html):

How do I make a link in a text submission?

You can't. This is to prevent people from submitting a link with their comments in a privileged position at the top of the page. If you want to submit a link with comments, just submit it, then add a regular comment.

The same issue comes up with titles. I tell people all the time: if you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

In this case, though, I made an exception because the post isn't recommending the article the way submissions usually do, but rather the opposite. It seems a bit unfair to make it link to it in the standard way. Don't worry, it's not going to become a pattern (dark or otherwise).

52-6F-627• 5 years ago

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.

Single opinion articles are not representative of the sum of their publisher. And thank god for that...

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.

That applies anywhere though: if I can subscribe with a click or two, the unsubscribe process should follow the same pattern.

coliveira2• 5 years ago

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.

Symbiote• 5 years ago

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.

(I can't check, I'm not a subscriber.)

The New York Times criticizes dark patterns, but fails to criticize themselves

Related Stories