Hacker News Reader

Comment by ISO-morphism | Hacker News Reader

Every time I open the Snapchat Android app it prompts me with a Snapchat-styled (not the system) dialog to share my contacts. Every time I hit "Don't allow". Every time it prompts me again.

This is an inexcusable dark pattern. Two things need to happen:

1. The operating system needs to provide a "screw you, never" option for any permissions.

2. We as engineers need to say "screw you, never" to requests to implement behavior like this. Sure, this could be a bug, but I see the same behavior with Venmo and location access.

Personally I'm rather disillusioned with where we've found ourselves. This sort of adversarial relationship in which people are property of a platform and treated as such is winning.

Edit: Venmo had been set to "Only while using the app" and was prompting to enable location services on the device, not for permission. That's my own fault.

View on HN

The "screw you, never" option is to delete your Snapchat and Venmo accounts, and delete those apps from your device. This is what I did.

Indeed, that's what I should do as an individual and try to drag along as much of my social graph as I can. There probably isn't any salvaging platforms built on data collection as a business model.

>We as engineers need to say "screw you, never"

The engineers have spoken. They say, "I'm getting paid too much to care."

Or they look at it from my perspective- who cares? According to you this is an issue but from another perspective there are clueless users who accidentally denied the permission and are grateful later. Can we really afford to have every engineer constantly objecting to the slightest subjective interpretation of what makes a dark pattern?

That's not for me to decide.

The system does have a "screw you, never" option for all permissions.

The issue is that Snapchat (in your case, as I don't have this happen on v11.23.3.36) is told that they wont get the permission and wont be able to ask for it either.

And so they perform their own inhouse permission request to you.

There is nothing that can be done from the system's point of view for that.

> v11.23.3.36

v11.25.0.29 Beta for me

> in house permission request

That's what I had feared. I'd expand the scope of "the system" to include Play store rules.

It would change the ecosystem, for the better, if Google would uphold and enforce their policies as fiercly as Apple does. It would surely reduce the amount dark pattern predatory apps on the market place, and overall just pull the quality up a few notches.

Why they haven't done so already is a mystery to me.

> There is nothing that can be done from the system's point of view for that.

They can ban the app from app stores for using any non-system interface to request permissions, like they do for payments.

I am not agreeing with it, but they are showing a piece of custom ui that probably links into the settings for you to make changes.

That is a very normal practice on Android. The fact that Snapchat decides that pestering the user for the permission is acceptable I find to be a very strange design decision.

It's not that strange, it's just a dark pattern. But it does touch on a specific problem with permissions interfaces.

If you have an interface that looks like "requestPermissions(...)" or something like that and have a case where users can reject permissions forever without nags, then how do you handle users who inadvertently deny permissions forever? One solution is to just nag forever, if you can.

Another workaround is to enable permissions manually through settings, but you need to make errors loud and obvious with workaround instructions and people interpret the issue as a bug in your code rather than a feature of the platform.

This is a problem on MacOS, just as an example.

I get annoyed by the web version of this for push notifications - mostly the ones that copy the specific browser UA style.

The system could supply an empty contact list.

This dark pattern is called the ratchet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689663

Reply on news.ycombinator.com