Facebook's "Evil Interfaces" 244
An anonymous reader writes "Tim Jones over at the EFF's Deep Links Blog just posted an interesting article on the widespread use of deceptive interface techniques on the Web. He began by polling his Twitter and Facebook audience for an appropriate term for this condition and received responses like 'Bait-and-Click' and 'Zuckerpunched.' Ultimately, he chose 'Evil Interfaces' from Greg Conti's HOPE talk on malicious interface design and follow-up interview with media-savvy puppet Weena. Tim then goes on to dissect Facebook (with pictures). So, what evil interfaces have you encountered on (or off) the Web?"
Ok, honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not your data any more. You published it online and lost any control you might have had over it. Sorry.
As soon as you see the word "richer" (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you see the word "richer", as in "richer user experience", hold on to your wallet. The only thing rich about a "richer user experience" is how rich it is going to make the person forcing it on you.
sPh
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Less deceptive now (Score:4, Insightful)
FB has become less deceptive in some of their newer things. Not that it's a good thing (the method they have done so). Want to list a certain thing about yourself? Sure. If you have it linked to the page/group/whatever about it. Thus exposing your interests and yourself to the world.
...or you can have your profile info page blank.
No option C anymore.
So, nowadays, it has become more of a use of strongarm tactics to ensure that your data is everywhere and available to anyone as opposed to deceptively tricking people into doing so.
I'm not sure which is worse. The current method for me (well, if I cared. Anything I put on FB on my info section is already all over the web or the Star Trek Phase 2 site or IMDB).
One's very annoying (the "we're posting this info linked to you wherever we choose, or you can choose to have an empty profile" method) and the old method is deceptively evil (the "we'll simply confuse you into allowing us to post your info unless you take the time to stop and read what you are doing and opt out" method).
I guess a lot of people were getting smarter - especially with so many warnings online and via other FB friends telling people to click/unclick new "hidden" privacy options on FB every time a new change rolled out. So, FB got smart in creating a new way of using that info with no privacy settings to prevent them from - either post the info so they can do what they want with it - or remove all the info entirely.
Re:Less deceptive now (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the deceptive photo uploader?
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
Offline Evil Interface - Gas Pumps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Less deceptive now (Score:3, Insightful)
How about the deceptive photo uploader?
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
LoL... that is why I said "LESS deceptive" instead of "Not deceptive anymore" ;-)
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:1, Insightful)
Its not really the same. Information can be shared freely (which is part of the problem) but money is finite.
Its more like you paying your rent in MP3s. But FB is taking your MP3s and allowing others to copy and share them freely.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been using facebook for a long time now. I know all about zukerberg's questionable past and general sliminess. But tell me this, what lack privacy settings is everybody complaining about? I checked the privacy page just now and it seems I have control over everything I can think of. And the interface is pretty straight forward. Is there something I'm missing? Or are people just having a knee jerk reaction here?
This is a serious question, if there is a important privacy setting missing from facebook I want to know because I use it everyday.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but privacy is also finite. Once lost, it can never be regained.
It's not at all like MP3s because facts can't be copyrighted. It's more like giving a friend information in confidence, only to find out he sold it to a tabloid.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
Information can be shared freely (which is part of the problem) but money is finite.
The fractional reserve banking system says you're wrong. Today's money IS information, and is therefore infinite (or more accurately: nonexistent).
What, did you think your employer shipped truckloads of silver bars to back those biweekly electronic deposits to your account ?
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because money was never limited by the supply of materials to produce it, but by the state (or in the US, the Federal Reserve). We decide that money is finite because otherwise it would be useless.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
And even if you do that, you'll never be sure they've actually deleted the data.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
Now what in the world would make you think you lose your right to control something because you make it available online?
Seriously, when a book goes to the public library, does that mean the author relinquishes his rights to it? When an artist's music is sold through iTunes, does that mean he no longer can claim ownership? When a video is published on YouTube, does that mean it can never be taken down?
I don't blame him but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark is not going to give up access to your data, it is what makes him rich, so people need to realise it's not smart to talk about your vagina or how drunk you got in such a public area. Once they realise that's dumb then maybe they'll tell Mark to quit shilling their data and that little twat will have to find another way to get rich.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the poster was talking about data portability, not ownership. He wants to be able to export his data when he leaves (a la Google's Data Liberation Front [dataliberation.org]). There's no automated way to get your photos, blog posts, connection information, and the like out of FB.
Re:Ok, honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
The comparison still works just the same. If I decide I don't like Slashdot (or any number of other places) anymore, I can quit posting any further, but I can't remove what I already did post. And even if I could, someone may well have mirrored, copied, or reproduced it elsewhere.
The bottom line remains, never put something on the Internet that you do not want the world to know in perpetuity. Quite often, there is no way to "take it back".
I'm not even sure there should be a means to take it back. An author can't decide two years later that they regret writing a book, and demand that all copies be confiscated and burned, reviews of it be deleted and destroyed, and other records of it be erased. When you publish something in a public medium, it is part of the public record. Regret it or not, you really can't unsay something.
"Think before you speak, not after" is really not a bad lesson.
Re:Bathrooms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two Related Research Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
The former was not disingenuous, it's just a perfect example of the widespread use of malicious interface design.
A matter of definitions I guess but to me malicious interface design is disingenuous, in this case claiming the something is available by clicking on the link (full text pdf) when further steps are actually required. It's usually fairly clearcut whether an interface is dishonest or not - it's just that many dishonest people try to wiggle out of it.
The article writer likely has no control over who the WWW Conference chooses to publish their materials, and if they did you know they wouldn't use a company that has such malicious interfaces.
The writer was claiming a paper was available by clicking on the link when for the vast majority of the slashdot readership it was not. Having said that I blame the ACM web designer more than the writer.
For what it's worth, the full text feature of ACM.org is not in any way malicious towards a subscriber who regularly uses the service to read published papers.
If link labels accurately reflect what each link does then sure. Subscribers do suffer from the above problem though; erroneously saying papers are available to non-ACM subscribers when they're not. This is a common problem for academics in institutional settings not aware that the institution has subscribed on their behalf.
All it would take is a "(subscription required)" note next to the PDF and it would no longer be a trap.
Better "(paid subscription required)" but yes.
And the above is not even getting into the open access scientific publishing discussion...
---
Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.
Re:As soon as you see the word "richer" (Score:3, Insightful)
Just using the word "experience" in this way is a red flag. "Hello! I am a friendly corporation pretending to be your friend! Boy, I am sure enjoying this fun experience!"