I never knew who I was. I still don’t know who I am. It doesn’t matter anyway.

  • 0 Posts
  • 100 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2025

help-circle

  • @1dalm@lemmy.today @linux@lemmy.ml

    The country I exist in (Brazil) passed an age verification law “Lei 15.211/2025” which, to a certain extent, is even more dystopian than Californian one. Because, at least, the Californian “allows” self-declared age, while Brazilian don’t. This means systems must employ mechanisms such as ID’ing, age estimation by selfie or behavioral analysis.

    When UK passed their law, threatening and, to certain extent, effectively sanctioning even even non-UK “disobedient”, something happened: many sites and platforms started to geoblock UK. Many Fediverse instances geoblocked UK.

    Brazil has a similar history of legal outreach, we had court decisions trying to enforce and rule over non-Brazilians. Something similar is expected to happen when it comes to this age verification law. So I’d expect a similar widespread reaction of sites and platforms geoblocking Brazil.

    In fact, it’s already happening: in mere two days since the law became effective, MidnightBSD geoblocked Brazil, Arch Linux 32-bits (not the mainstream Arch Linux) geoblocked Brazil, and others are expected to follow, both distros and websites as well. Including the Fediverse.

    This kind of law will hardly stay in the countries and USian states where they’ve been implemented. It’ll spread, because the narrative it’s wrapped with is too alluring and compelling (from emotional appealing “Think about the children!?” all the way to the strawman “If you disagree with age checking laws, you’re literally a pdf file”). So expect more countries embracing this dystopia. This means fewer and fewer places where it’s not a thing. It reeks of a coordinated agenda, especially because it achieves similar things that intended by projects such as Chat Control, PIPA/SOPA, among many other previous authoritarian attempts. The authoritarian found the correct recipe: wrap 1984 in a cute “children protection” wrapping, rinse and repeat.

    Therefore, some Fediverse instances, especially those sitting under the hurricane’s eye (e.g. Lemmy Brasil) may end up implementing age checking, or stopping altogether if they can’t afford the additional costs of age checking (it won’t be a free thing for platforms to do; a trivial cost for giants such as Meta, Google and Microsoft, but unfeasible for, say, Fediverse instances and FOSS projects).

    Now, regarding the “kid friendly” limitation: if the Web gets limited to “non-adult content”… what’s “adult content” to begin with? Is it just porn, or it may end up covering several non-pornographic things?

    It turns out, and here I’m risking getting too off-topic, many things would end up beneath this purposefully vague terminology “adult content”, content from many vulnerable groups: LGBTQIA+ (check out what happened during the recent itch.io and Steam crusade against “adult games”), women, pagans/occultists, political dissidents and whistleblowers, among others. This is what age verification laws are about: silencing everything deemed non-normative.


  • @ominouslemon@sh.itjust.works @linux@lemmy.ml

    The git PR specifically mentions a birthDate, a data struct that feels like it could easily be tampered with (therefore, far from “confiável” (trustworthy) as explicitly required by “deverão ser adotados mecanismos confiáveis de verificação de idade” (“trustworthy age checking mechanisms must be adopted”)).

    Thinking of age checking as some kind of OAuth flow, one would ideally store the authz token from whatever age checking provider validated the user’s age, instead of some plain data which, depending on the provider, wouldn’t even be handed to the application.

    I can sort of imagine the following, hypothetical flow:

    1. Human tries to access the system for the first time
    2. System asks for human consent to proceed with age checking
    3. Human (is compelled to) accept going through age checking shenanigans
    4. System redirects human to 3rd-party age checking provider interface (e.g. Persona).
    5. Provider proceeds with whatever means necessary for the human to upload ID and/or selfie, who does whatever is required from them by the provider interface.
    6. In case of IDs, the provider talks with gov databases (e.g. Receita Federal do Brasil for CPF “Cadastro de Pessoa Física”) in order to attest the validity of the ID. In case of selfie, provider communicates with a facial recognition model/algorithm/platform.
    7. Provider gets the information necessary for age-bracketing, appends it to their own DB with a signing hash, then returns the digest of said hash as a token to the system.
    8. System receives the authorization payload and confirms with the provider whether it’s a valid token.
    9. Provider replies positively, perhaps with some kind of checksum, regarding validity of the token.
    10. System stores the token to hand it to whatever subsystem (for OSes, a software; for online platforms such as social media, a module/route) requesting age info.
    11. Subsystem allows or denies human access.

    Some age checking models (such as EU) seems to be doing a similar thing to what I hypothesized above: the EU Digital Wallet returns a token, instead of PII. A token that can be checked against the Digital Wallet API for validity (theoretically) without disclosing who the user is (in practice, it’d be another, pretty reliable piece of traceable data despite any “anonymity”)

    I’m not sure whether a similar thing will be implemented here in Brazil (we got an official gov app, gov.br, which can already be used for “social log-in” by 3rd-party platforms, but I don’t know whether it’s ready for age check provisioning).

    As far as I know Brazil and Brazilians, it’s highly likely we’d end up with dependencies on Microsoft or Google services because Brazilian gov can’t help but handing its own sovereignty to US tech corps, which adds to the dystopia.

    I must make something very clear: I’m far from agreeing with this dystopia, I deeply despise this whole “age check” thing going on worldwide; I’m just thinking as a DevOps would.


  • @skyline2@lemmy.dbzer0.com @linux@lemmy.ml

    Brazilian here. I’m neither a lawyer nor a specialist, just someone who has read the Portuguese text from the Brazilian flavor of the ongoing worldwide age check set of laws.

    I must note that the Brazilian age check law (Lei 15.211/2025) specifies “vedada a autodeclaração” (English: “self-declaring is forbidden”). This means that this kind of implementation, where age or birthday is an user input, wouldn’t be compliant to Lei 15.211/2025, because it requires the age information to be assessed independently from the user whose age is being assessed. This means face biometrics, government-issued ID (in our case, CPF, CNH, Passaporte and similar) or “behaviorial analysis”… Anything but a “yes I’m 18” or “I was born in day month year”, for those are self-declared and the Law says it’s “not enough”.

    Someone should warn the systemd maintainers of this “Brazilian jabuticaba”.

    (Cross posting this reply of mine because the post was cross posted to two different Lemmy instances)


  • @comfy@lemmy.ml @asklemmy@lemmy.ml

    Back when I used TikTok, I found some incredibly rare, interesting pitches, regarding some kind of product or service I didn’t know the existence of. Can’t really recall examples atm; it’s been a long time since I ditched TikTok, but I vaguely remember seeing some agricultural-related ads (farm machinery) which instantly led me to wonder “what the… What is this thing, how does it work?”. Of course I didn’t buy the thing, it’s just that it was interesting to learn about the existence of such a thing, even if through some annoying piece of advertisement.

    Again, extremely rare situations.



  • @SalamenceFury@piefed.social @qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
    @technology@lemmy.world

    The news articles about this law, if said articles were published, are likely buried under the ongoing Caso do Banco Master (a large financial scandal involving a bank), the all-encompassing political crisis going on in Brazil, the international Iran-USA conflict, among other ongoing events. There are too many things happening simultaneously, so I don’t really blame news outlets: they can only cover so much because we, as humans, can’t be aware of all things when too many things are happening. So this is why little (if anything) about said law is being reported by news outlets such as Globo/G1.

    Even as a Brazilian myself, I wasn’t aware of this law (I was only aware of the so-called “Lei Felca” named after the YouTuber/TikToker Felca; but it doesn’t seem to be this law specifically). I only got to discover about this law through the English-speaking Fediverse and Nostr posts.


  • @Krauerking@lemy.lol @technology@lemmy.world

    Wow, LOVED the shirt! 🖤 Ágios Lux ferre!

    I, too, do use a similar t-shirt, whose print I designed myself tries to depict Lilith. From afar, the print isn’t that explicit, though: to the average bystander, it’s depicting a pale woman with glowing red eyes, dark red lips, straight long dark red hair and feathery dark red wings (certainly mistaken by others as angelical), holding a red rose flower. Even the text (“Rebele-se pela”, Portuguese for “Rebel yourself for” at the top; “Liberdade”, “Freedom/Liberty”, at the bottom), which is stylized (gothic font), is too small to be read from afar. The only tell is the mirrored ⯝ (the Venus/Feminine symbol but the circle is a waxing Moon; in my art, it’s actually a waning Moon for Her Crone/Reaperess aspect) tattooed on Her left cheek, and the dark wings.

    The problem is how the country I was born into is utterly christian; most employers and merchants are christian, especially in small towns (one of which I reside in), which are known for “quermesses” (annual church fairs). And when the majority of potential employers, especially the local ones, are utterly christian, saying out loud about professing a different religion risks one’s own economic and social existence.

    For example, a Mãe de Santo (leadress of a terreiro, which is the Afro-Brazilian sacred place of gathering) was refused an Uber car ride after the driver reprimanded her for her clothing typical of Afro-Brazilian, then she sued the driver for religious intolerance, but the judge denied her request and ruled favorable for the driver, inverting the entire situation and arguing “it was the Mãe de Santo who was religiously intolerant with the christian driver”; the judge was reported for being religiously intolerant (news articles in Portuguese), but the damage is already done).

    In another example, a statue representing Lucifer/Baphomet/Exú from a Luciferian-Quimbanda temple was seized by a judicial decision after local christians became terrified of it, and the statue is still seized for more than a year.

    Those became headlines, but there’s a plethora of religious intolerance going unnoticed, social ostracism caused by simply having another faith other than christianity; it even risks body integrity (e.g. gangs such as Primeiro Comando da Capital torturing and/or murdering practitioners of Afro-Brazilian faiths).

    This is the persecution me and many others are fated to face as soon as age checks, tying online activity (where I don’t measure my words to praise Mother) to the legal ID, end up (inevitably) leaked (e.g. Discord age check DB leaked just days after implementing age checks).


  • @MindfulMaverick@piefed.zip @asklemmy@lemmy.ml

    Humans are normally busy with all sorts of things that make them busy: working, dealing with social duties, etc. When they get some time free, they’re too exhausted to do their own research (that is, if they know how to do research, which most humans don’t), so they turn on the television (or their favourite YouTube channel) and listen to whatever the simulacrum says:

    …when the radio came, and I suppose now television, anything that came through that new machine was believed. (Orson Welles)

    Therefore, being able to read conspiracy theories as deeply as possible, being able to do one’s own research, being able to spend nights on books and articles, it requires one to be unemployed or, at best, having some kind of job that doesn’t drain them mentally and allows for flexible time.

    Also, there’s this “Boy crying wolf” dilemma when it comes to conspiracy theories: the same places where one can discover about Bilderberg Meetings before they became officially disclosed annual event, is the same place swearing that the Earth is some kind of DVD disc ruled by extraterrestrial lizards. I used to be an avid participant of conspiracy theory communities (not 4chan, but Orkut and Telegram communities) and a conspiracy theorist myself, but these nonsensical theories were part of the reason why I departed both from conspiracy theory communities, and from christianity as well, as I began to realize how “satanic panic” was christian bigotry.

    For most people, the busy and vampiric mundane life, alongside the perception of “craziness” when it comes to conspiracy theories, contributed to this boiling frog phenomenon.

    But, yeah, lots of conspiracies, once theories, became fulfilled, and became integrated into the normalcy.

    Maybe “ignorance is a bliss” (Cypher, The Matrix), and not knowing what will happen beforehand gives one the necessary delusions to keep their biological existence going.

    Unfortunately, this is no longer my case for more than a decade. And now, with the once-conspiratorial internet ID (“age check”, now extended to OSes so, essentially, “internet ID”) helped cemented my long-standing hopelessnes… Because, now, as someone who departed from Christianity into the very opposite belief (devoted to The Dark Mother Goddess), but still surrounded by mostly christian people (and this includes potential employers, buyers and merchants), the slightest leak (purposeful and whatnot) of my real legal identity tied to my openly, mostly-occultist online activity will further cement my social ostracisation (being refused from jobs because the employers will see my online activity tied to my age check and argue that I “worship the devil” or something). But, yeah, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, people say…


  • @TriplePlaid@wetshav.ing @qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de @technology@lemmy.world

    For me, a Brazilian, there’s something I must hide if I want to be employable: my occultist practices, my religion. I’m a worshiper of Lilith, surrounded by mostly Christian people. I literally heard “faux-jokes” (when people want to condemn someone, but wrapping the condemnation as a joke) tying my belief to “ending up in hell”.

    Even though my legal name isn’t difficult to find through my pseudonym, you can imagine why I use a pseudonym to openly express my religion. And once digital activity is tied to my CPF (Brazilian citizen/legal identity), and I’m definitely not buying the “anonymized checking” arguments, suddenly potential employers and buyers/merchants will know I “worship the devil” and will have yet another reason to refuse hiring me or buying/selling things from/to me.

    Also, some of Lilith imagery and stories involve content which is sensitive, subjected to those very “age check” laws, further making it necessary for me to comply to “age checks” whenever I want to read or write, observe or do drawings about the fundamental deity I worship.

    But according to certain people, “having something to hide = must be a criminal!!!”. Because they’re likely followers of some mainstream religion which is not socially persecuted, or religion isn’t something significant in their lives.

    Seriously. I’m truly tired of this world.


  • @danielbp@lemmy.ml @qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de @technology@lemmy.world

    @potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.space
    Estou respondendo assim porque eu não consegui puxar seu comentário aqui pelo Calckey/Sharkey (e também não recebi notificação, vi pelo Lemmy.ml sem conta por ali para responder diretamente). O Calckey deu erro alegando que sua instância retornou um formato de dados “incorreto” (“Response is invalid: It could communicate with this server, but the data obtained was incorrect”).

    Eu falei de meme kkkkkk

    Ah, agora entendi! hahah

    mas vou procurar uma distro 100% livre, talvez ir de vez pro GNU Guix

    O foda é que, por mais que existam distros 100% livres, dificilmente ficarão fora dos olhos dessa lei.

    E, pegando o gancho desse trecho…

    Vou precisar mostrar minha CNH pro meu próprio servidor? Acho que não, pelo menos não tem como saber, a não ser que a polícia viva dentro da minha casa.

    Tem outra: a gente tem que lembrar que, apesar de termos inúmeras alternativas de distros e de sistemas operacionais no PC, o PC está restrito a, basicamente, Intel e AMD.

    Ademais, há não muito tempo, houve toda uma migração para TPM 2.0, inclusive por parte da comunidade Linux. O TPM 2.0 talvez seja a forma pela qual todo esse lance de verificação de idade ocorrerá, a nível de hardware. É onde, inclusive, faria mais sentido tecnicamente falando: é um hardware que basicamente dita o que pode ou não na máquina.

    Daí hardware mais antigo, que não tem TPM 2.0, não só se tornará obsoleto, mas também acabaria se tornando ilegal, por carecer de mecanismos de “segurança”, tal como, como uma analogia e exemplo (embora o exemplo a seguir pode não ser um exemplo preciso ou correto), veículos muito antigos (os primeiros Fuscas, e veículos da época ou anteriores) se tornaram ilegais por carecer de itens de segurança exigidos pelo CTB (cinto de segurança, limpadores, etc).


  • @danielbp@lemmy.ml @qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de @technology@lemmy.world

    As pessoas já lhe responderam, mas permita-me aqui fazer uma ênfase:

    Lei nº 15.211 de 17/09/2025
    […]
    Art. 2º Para os fins desta Lei, considera-se:
    I – produto ou serviço de tecnologia da informação: produto ou serviço fornecido a distância, por meio eletrônico e provido em virtude de requisição individual, tais como aplicações de internet, programas de computador, software s, sistemas operacionais de terminais, lojas de aplicações de internet e jogos eletrônicos ou similares conectados à internet ou a outra rede de comunicações;
    […]
    Art. 9º Os fornecedores de produtos ou serviços de tecnologia da informação que disponibilizarem conteúdo, produto ou serviço cuja oferta ou acesso seja impróprio, inadequado ou proibido para menores de 18 (dezoito) anos de idade deverão adotar medidas eficazes para impedir o seu acesso por crianças e adolescentes no âmbito de seus serviços e produtos.

    § 1º Para dar efetividade ao disposto no caput, deverão ser adotados mecanismos confiáveis de verificação de idade a cada acesso do usuário ao conteúdo, produto ou serviço de que trata o caput deste artigo, vedada a autodeclaração.

    https://normas.leg.br/?urn=urn:lex:br:federal:lei:2025%3B15211

    Ou seja: não será uma caixinha pra selecionar a data de nascimento, ou um botão “sim, sou adulto”, porque ambos seriam “auto-declaração”. Em outras palavras: validação facial ou identidade (reconhecimento facial via terminal do Linux, could you imagine that?!) pra usar a porra de um computador. E considerando que aplicativos e websites são sine qua non pra muita coisa essencial a fim de se “viver em sociedade” (contas bancárias e Pix, carteira digital de trânsito e outras identidades digitais, gov.br que agora exige autenticação de dois fatores, etc), sendo vedado portanto o Luditismo pelas dinâmicas sociais, sinceramente… pra mim esse mundo e essa minha existência já extrapolou meu limite existencial e, se minha Deusa Mãe Lilith quiser, vou-me logo logo simbora desse pálido ponto azul de uma vez por todas!

    O pessoal que tá dizendo que vai instalar outros sistemas operacionais que não Windows e Linux (como, por exemplo, @potatoguy@mbin.potato-guy.space mencionou TempleOS): essa lei afeta todo e qualquer sistema operacional porque a galera lá de Brasília não entende de ciência da computação (como vai ficar o Alpine no Docker, outras formas de virtualização como QEMU e VirtualBox? Será que computação em nuvem vai virar “coisa ilegal” que nem VPN virou no DesReino Unido e que também já tem precedente de definição como “ilícito” em algumas decisões do Supremo aqui no Brasil? (não entro no mérito dessas decisões, estou simplesmente lembrando que isso já ocorreu)).

    Mas é lei, sancionada pelo Excelentíssimo Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. E tudo indica que passará a ser policiada e fiscalizada daqui duas semanas.



  • @XLE@piefed.social @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world

    The most menacing thing in that picture is the bold red text, assuming it isn’t Photoshopped that way

    I’m interacting from Sharkey, on a Lemmy thread, and you’re interacting from PieFed. I’m not sure if PieFed fetches the alt-text from images. If you access my original Sharkey note, you’ll see the following alt-text:

    Screenshot of confirmation dialog “Block AI enhancements?” with “or pop-ups about them” highlighted.

    I disclosed the fact that “or pop-ups about them” was highlighted. Also, a quick reverse image search would point to the original picture where said excerpt isn’t highlighted.

    It would be photoshopping/photo manipulation if I removed, added or changed text from the picture, which I didn’t.

    I’ve seen Firefox implement other dark patterns, including hiding the ability to disable ads from within the homepage

    Exactly, and even this one is a matter of conundrum when it’s brought to the table. Because Mozilla, and corporations in general, know the exact, dosimetric approach of pushing dark patterns, not too hard so all the user base would readily notice and complain, not too soft so all the shareholders wouldn’t see the “graph line go up”. Just the right amount to make things dance to their song.

    Even today, stating how the opting-out of “Sponsored shortcuts” isn’t trivial for the average user (not to mention how said user will see the sponsored shortcuts at least once as they head to turn them off), is met with people blindly advocating for Mozilla (which, let us remember, they’re a corporation with corporate interests, not a lifelong friend or a fellow trustworthy acquaintance, and corporations are driven by profit, not by friendship or psychological well-being).

    But this isn’t really one of them

    The opt-out implies a feature that was pushed without consent.

    Again, I bring my heavy hypothetical example: if a harasser offers the harassed a way out of the harassment after having initiated the harassment, would this make the harasser less of a harasser? Hell no, of course no! It’s still harassment! It turns out opt-out features are exactly that: something that gives you the “right” to leave, only after it was pushed onto you.

    And The fact that “opting-out” requires double confirmation only makes it worse, as if the hypothetical harassed were to be ask by the hypothetical harasser “are you sure you don’t want this?” before being “allowed” to be freed from the hypothetical harassment.

    Users have been begging Mozilla for StartPage integration, but Mozilla gave them a Perplexity integration instead.

    Exactly, another dark pattern, and another proof of how Mozilla is not a friend, but a corporation.

    the ones that give them money

    Yeah. And this is often the justification people often use to advocate for that: “oh, but Mozilla needs to mane money” (at what cost?), as if donation-based economy weren’t a thing.



  • @skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev

    asking for a confirmation before turning on/off the AI functionalities

    The thing is, there doesn’t seem to be confirmation before turning clankers on (at least I didn’t find screenshots in this regard), but there is such a confirmation before turning the whole thing off (that is, from the default-on state Mozilla pushed unto the software upon updating/installing).

    If both situations involved double confirmation dialog in a symmetrical manner (“are you sure you want to proceed with activating this feature?” coexisting with “are you sure you want to opt-off from this feature?”), that would be fair. Pretty annoying, but fair. But this fairness doesn’t seem to be happening, no confirmation dialog seems to exist for actually using the feature. The only thing similar to a “confirmation” during further usage of “AI Enhancements” would be the authentication step from whatever clanker was chosen from the suspiciously-biased list of clankers (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama, Mistral; no non-Western options such as Qwen or DeepSeek, for example).

    as it is a disruptive action that affect overall users

    How disruptive would be turning off a feature that is far from being essential to browsing (and, in practice, may end up rendering the whole browsing experience worse with inaccurate summarization and potential vulnerabilities (prompt injection, remote code execution, etc), produced by pieces of software explicitly labeled as “it may produce inaccuracies”)?

    Not to say how, as I mentioned initially, the entire premise of bringing it as default-on with now the added “right” to “opt-off” is, itself, non-consensual relationship, insofar the user didn’t seek it by themselves. Clankers would be a nice feature for some niches and use cases (again: I myself use LLMs, but it stems from my own decision to do so, not because it was pushed onto me; something I opted-in), but it should be voluntarily sought, installed and turned on by the user as they please, not as “default-on” option.

    Anyway, all good. It is nice to see people with this kind of concerns

    Sure, no problems, that’s reciprocal, we’re good! Throughout my exchanges in this entire thread, I tried to keep it respectful (at least when it comes to the debate and my peers; of course I’m fiercely criticizing Mozilla Corporation, because they were once the ones who “will never sell your data”) and trying to debate the idea and not the peer’s person.

    My concerns, in the end of the day, are just an attempt to advocate for the total, non-negotiable autonomy and Free Will (as far as Free Will can get in a deterministic cosmic existence) of users, far from just my own; and this involves denouncing potential corporate biases whenever a corporation brings up another brick in the already-tall wall of enshittification, naming and shaming corporations for their greedy corporate behavior.




  • @skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev

    Maybe I’m overly idealistic when it comes to software but, IMHO, a software (especially a browser) should be the least distractive possible. My point about modals was about feature announcement pop-ups (“Now you can do Y… Click on Z menu to get into Y”), the ones which Mozilla Firefox explicitly mentioned within the confirmation dialog, as well as the said confirmation dialog which, as far as I could find about, is one-sided, for there are no confirmation dialog to the other action, which is to activate the clankers.

    The ideal workflow, to me, is as follows: the user launches the browser software, the main UI opens minimalistically listing the most frequently accessed websites and the pinned bookmarks, the user clicks on some shortcut or types in some URL, then the browser fetches the network content from said website, parses it, fetches whatever else needs to be fetched for the specific website, renders it visible on the screen, then let the user interact with the page as they please, without a MS Clippy-like behavior of reminding the user “It looks like this page has links, you can summarize them using a clanker” on a frequent basis.

    Lynx, for example, is the perfect example of this, it’s not an utopia I’m imagining: I type lynx and I press enter, then Lynx executes and brings its TUI, then I press g and type the URL of a website, and it fetches and does what needs to be done in order to bring up the website to the TUI. No cluttered interface except for the short list of keyboard shortcuts at the bottom which don’t require user interaction nor disturb the UX. That’s KISS approach.

    When a browser has a MS Clippy-like behavior and, most importantly, when a browser brings potentially unwanted features turned on by default, whose opt-out requires the user to go through some sort of gymnastics while the usage of said feature is asymmetrically easy (seemingly no “confirm you want to use the clanker? The clanker may have access to the following: page content, currently open tabs, credentials on the page, etc…” like the opt-out confirmation dialog lists exhaustively about “enhancements that will be unavailable while the user opts out of Firefox AI enhancements”), again: perhaps I’m being too pedantic but, to me, it smells, it looks, it behaves and it whispers like a dark pattern.


  • @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world

    When we develop a system (I used to work as a DevOps for almost 10 years), the technical aspects aren’t the only aspects being accounted for: especially when it comes to the front-end (i.e. the UI the user sees, the UX how user interaction will happen and how it may be perceived by them), psychology (especially behaviorism) is sine qua non.

    Shapes and colors often carry archetypal meanings: a red element feels “dangerous”, a window with a yellow triangle icon feels to be “warning” about something, a green button feels “okayish”. I mean, those are the exact same principles behind traffic lights.

    And signs and symbols, ruling the world, don’t exist in a vacuum: a colored button besides a monochromatic button may, psychologically, lead to a feeling that the colored button is the proper way to proceed.

    But… there’s a twist: imagine you have a light-gray “Cancel” and a colored (regardless of the color) “Block”. “Block” is a strong word. The length of the label text also does impart psychological effects. The human brain may see: “huh, I have this button which reads ‘block’ and it’s quite strong, and this other button which reads ‘cancel’ and it’s more easy to the eyes, maybe ‘block’ is dangerous”. Contrast matters: the comparison between a substrate and the substances is pretty much how we’re wired to navigate this world as living beings.

    Now, corporations such as Apple (Safari), Google (Chromium), and very likely Mozilla (Firefox) as well, they have entire hordes of psychologists directly working for them, likely the same psychologists who’ll work together with their HR departments for evaluating the candidates who applied for a job position there. These psychologists, and/or psychoanalysts, they know about Jungian archetypes, they know about fight-or-flight response and other facets of our deeply-ingrained instincts, they know about how colors are generally perceived by the human brain. Those psychologists likely played a role when a brand was chosen, or when an advertisement pitch was made. They know what they’re doing.

    UX/UI decisions are far from random choices from the leading team of project management engineers, it involved designers with psychologists. Again: they know what they’re doing, they know it pretty well. They know how the users are likely to keep the functionality. They know how the users, as Ulrich said, are very unlikely to touch the settings, likely to keep the defaults, no matter what those defaults are. Because they know humans are driven by the “least-effort” instinct, which is quite of a fundamental principle shared among living beings as a byproduct of the “lowest energetic point” (thermodynamic equilibrium) principle.

    To me, a former full-stack developer, the newer Firefox interfaces don’t feel like Firefox is being psychologically fair and honest with the user’s mind. Dark patterns are often subtle, and they’re part of a purposeful, corporate decision.