An official website of the United States government
Design practitioners are increasingly engaged in describing ethical complexity in their everyday work, exemplified by concepts such as "dark patterns" and "dark UX." In parallel, researchers have shown how interactions and discourses in online communities allow access to the various dimensions of design complexity in practice. In this paper, we conducted a content analysis of the subreddit "/r/assholedesign," identifying how users on Reddit engage in conversation about ethical concerns. We identify what types of artifacts are shared, and the salient ethical concerns that community members link with "asshole" behaviors. Based on our analysis, we propose properties that describe "asshole designers," both distinct and in relation to dark patterns, and point towards an anthropomorphization of ethics that foregrounds the inscription of designer's values into designed outcomes. We conclude with opportunities for further engagement with ethical complexity in online and offline contexts, stimulating ethics-focused conversations among social media users and design practitioners.
more »
« less
"Nothing Comes Before Profit": Asshole Design In the Wild
Researchers in HCI and STS are increasingly interested in describing ethics and values relevant for design practice, including the formulation of methods to guide value application. However, little work has addressed ethical considerations as they emerge in everyday conversations about ethics in venues such as social media. In this late breaking work, we describe online conversations about a concept known as "asshole design" on Reddit, and the relationship of this concept to another practitioner-focused concept known as "dark patterns." We analyzed 1002 posts from the subreddit '/r/assholedesign' to identify the types of artifact being shared and the interaction purposes that were perceived to be manipulative or unethical as a type of "asshole design." We identified a subset of these posts relating to dark patterns, quantifying their occurrences using an existing dark patterns typology.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1657310
- PAR ID:
- 10092727
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '19
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 6
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
There is increasing interest in the role that ethics plays in UX practice, however current guidance is largely driven by formalized frameworks and does not adequately describe "on the ground" practitioner conversations regarding ethics. In this late-breaking work, we identified and described conversations about a specific ethical phenomenon on Twitter using the hashtag #darkpatterns. We then determined the authors of these tweets and analyzed the types of artifacts or links they shared. We found that UX practitioners were most likely to share tweets with this hashtag, and that a majority of tweets either mentioned an artifact or "shames" an organization that engages in manipulative UX practices. We identify implications for building an enhanced understanding of pragmatist ethics from a practitioner perspective.more » « less
-
Lawmakers have started to regulate “dark patterns,” understood to be design practices meant to influence technology users’ decisions through manipulative or deceptive means. Most agree that dark patterns are undesirable, but open questions remain as to which design choices should be subjected to scrutiny, much less the best way to regulate them. In this Article, we propose adapting the concept of dark patterns to better fit legal frameworks. Critics allege that the legal conceptualizations of dark patterns are overbroad, impractical, and counterproductive. We argue that law and policy conceptualizations of dark patterns suffer from three deficiencies: First, dark patterns lack a clear value anchor for cases to build upon. Second, legal definitions of dark patterns overfocus on individuals and atomistic choices, ignoring de minimis aggregate harms and the societal implications of manipulation at scale. Finally, the law has struggled to articulate workable legal thresholds for wrongful dark patterns. To better regulate the designs called dark patterns, lawmakers need a better conceptual framing that bridges the gap between design theory and the law’s need for clarity, flexibility, and compatibility with existing frameworks. We argue that wrongful self-dealing is at the heart of what most consider to be “dark” about certain design patterns. Taking advantage of design affordances to the detriment of a vulnerable party is disloyal. To that end, we propose disloyal design as a regulatory framing for dark patterns. In drawing from established frameworks that prohibit wrongful self-dealing, we hope to provide more clarity and consistency for regulators, industry, and users. Disloyal design will fit better into legal frameworks and better rally public support for ensuring that the most popular tools in society are built to prioritize human values.more » « less
-
Dark patterns are user interface elements that can influence a person's behavior against their intentions or best interests. Prior work identified these patterns in websites and mobile apps, but little is known about how the design of platforms might impact dark pattern manifestations and related human vulnerabilities. In this paper, we conduct a comparative study of mobile application, mobile browser, and web browser versions of 105 popular services to investigate variations in dark patterns across modalities. We perform manual tests, identify dark patterns in each service, and examine how they persist or differ by modality. Our findings show that while services can employ some dark patterns equally across modalities, many dark patterns vary between platforms, and that these differences saddle people with inconsistent experiences of autonomy, privacy, and control. We conclude by discussing broader implications for policymakers and practitioners, and provide suggestions for furthering dark patterns research.more » « less
-
Activists, journalists, and scholars have long raised critical questions about the relationship between diversity, representation, and structural exclusions in data-intensive tools and services. We build on work mapping the emergent landscape of corporate AI ethics to center one outcome of these conversations: the incorporation of diversity and inclusion in corporate AI ethics activities. Using interpretive document analysis and analytic tools from the values in design field, we examine how diversity and inclusion work is articulated in public-facing AI ethics documentation produced by three companies that create application and services layer AI infrastructure: Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce. We find that as these documents make diversity and inclusion more tractable to engineers and technical clients, they reveal a drift away from civil rights justifications that resonates with the “managerialization of diversity” by corporations in the mid-1980s. The focus on technical artifacts — such as diverse and inclusive datasets — and the replacement of equity with fairness make ethical work more actionable for everyday practitioners. Yet, they appear divorced from broader DEI initiatives and relevant subject matter experts that could provide needed context to nuanced decisions around how to operationalize these values and new solutions. Finally, diversity and inclusion, as configured by engineering logic, positions firms not as “ethics owners” but as ethics allocators; while these companies claim expertise on AI ethics, the responsibility of defining who diversity and inclusion are meant to protect and where it is relevant is pushed downstream to their customers.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312863
