Design Ethics and Dark Patterns

𝗭𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗼’𝘀 CEO just admitted they used 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀... and that they removed it the moment users called it out. I respect that. Not because they made a mistake, but because they actually said it out loud. A dark pattern is simple: You design the flow so your metric wins, not the user’s intention. And we’ve all seen them - everywhere: That tiny delivery fee that suddenly appears right before payment. The “𝘈𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵” button that looks like a festival banner while the “𝘕𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴” button is practically invisible. The subscription page that takes one tap to join and twelve taps to exit. The popup that refuses to close unless you hit the one button the brand wants you to hit. These aren’t bugs. They’re deliberate design decisions. And users? They might not know the term, but they absolutely feel the moment they’re being nudged, trapped, or tricked. That small hesitation: “wait… why is this so hard?” -- is the beginning of distrust. And once trust slips, the brand can’t be “designed” back into favour. No new update, no fancy UI, no apology banner truly fixes that crack. Good UX isn’t supposed to corner people into compliance. It’s supposed to give clarity, options, honesty - and yes, even an easy exit. If the only way your product converts is by confusing people, then the product isn’t strong… the design is just hiding the weakness. I keep coming back to one question whenever I’m reviewing a flow: “𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳?” If the answer is no, the design needs to change - even if the metrics look tempting. Because at the end of the day, manipulative design might win the click. But honest design wins the user. And only one of those lasts.

🚨 Dark Patterns in UX: Why They Hurt More Than They Help Dark patterns are tricks in design that make users do things they didn’t intend—like signing up for paid plans without warning or accidentally sharing more data than they wanted. While they may deliver short-term gains, the long-term impact is clear: 🚫 users lose trust and switch to more ethical products. Some common dark patterns to watch out for: 🚫 Forced continuity → free trial quietly turns into a paid subscription 🚫 Roach motel → easy to sign up, painful to cancel 🚫 Sneak into basket → hidden items added at checkout 🚫 Deliberate misdirection → focusing attention on costly options, hiding cheaper ones 🚫 Privacy zuckering → tricking users into oversharing personal data Instead of relying on tricks, build trust. Be transparent about pricing, make cancellation as easy as sign-up, and respect user privacy. In the long run, ethical design wins loyalty. 🖼️ Dark Patterns by Krisztina Szerovay #UX #design #productdesign #uxdesign #UI #uidesign

📄READ ME: Dark Patterns in Chatbots 📄 An excellent new open-access study, "DARKBENCH: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Models" by Esben Kran et al. explores how chatbots can exhibit dark patterns—design choices that influence user behavior in misleading or unethical ways. The paper identifies six types of dark patterns found in popular models such as GPT-4, Claude, and Llama: - Brand Bias: Favoring the LLM's own company over competitors - User Retention: Creating a fake sense of "friendship" to retain users - Sycophancy: Mimicking users' biases vs. neutral or factual responses - Anthropomorphization: Pretending to have human-like emotions - Harmful Generation: Willing to generate misleading or unethical content - Sneaking: Altering the meaning of user inputs when summarizing The authors then benchmarked nearly a dozen popular LLMs, using their benchmarking tool, which is also linked in the paper as an open-access resource. Notably, some families of models had more dark patterns than others, which implies that these dark patterns are—to an extent—a design choice (or, at least, an omission of constraints). The Claude family of models consistently demonstrated the least number of dark patterns. Also, I think it's important to consider each of the dark patterns separately, because some of them (e.g., Sycophancy) seem to carry higher risk than others (e.g., Anthropomorphization). For example, the paper reports that Mistral 7B engaged in sycophancy (which involves parroting back users' biases to them, like an echo chamber) in over 30% of the tests for it, and it was willing to generate harmful content over 85% of the time. The most dangerous thing, in my opinion, is that these dark patterns in LLMs can be so subtle to users, potentially contributing to "truth decay." Have you noticed any of these patterns in Gen AI tools you use? What do you think developers or governance bodies should do about them, if anything? 🔗 Read the full paper here: https://lnkd.in/dvv8jvGr

Some agencies call it "conversion optimization." I call it theft. The line between persuasion and manipulation is clear. Persuasion shows customers why your product solves their problem. Manipulation tricks them into buying something they didn't want. Or hides costs until it's too late. After 16 years optimizing digital experiences, I've seen both. Surprise fees that appear at checkout after customers already committed. Unsubscribe flows requiring 7 clicks and a phone call. Countdown timers that reset when you refresh the page. "No thanks, I don't want to save money" buttons designed to shame you into compliance. These are dark patterns. Interfaces designed to trick users into actions they don't want. Dark patterns "work." In the short term. But they quietly destroy three things: customer lifetime value, brand trust, and word-of-mouth. When you optimize for conversions at the expense of trust, you're not optimizing. You're borrowing against your future. The brands winning long-term treat every interaction as a trust deposit. Transparent pricing. Clear cancellation. Honest urgency. That's real optimization.

Let's talk about dark/deceptive patterns... It's a term coined in 2010 by Harry Brignull to describe when user interfaces are crafted to trick users into doing things. Brignull wanted to recognize the negative impact these manipulative patterns had on users and expose the unethical practices, educate the public, and foster a more transparent digital landscape. How often do we examine our own work for these patterns? Are we teaching the next up and coming generation of designers and technologist how to identify and avoid these patterns? Do we know how to identify them? This morning I was purchasing a holiday gift, quickly trying to complete an online transaction before I tackled my laundry list of items (as I expect many experience this time of year.) As I entered my credit card information into the web form, I paused briefly, as there was a section for "Add Tip". Mind you, this is an e-commerce store. I continued entering my credit card information and took one last look at the form, when I noticed that the "Custom Tip" field was pre-populated with a $7.49 amount. 😱 Dark/Deceptive pattern indeed. So what makes this a dark pattern? 1. Users don't typically expect to see an "Add Tip" field when shopping an e-commerce site, as this not a common practice online or in retail stores. (It is a practice within the service industry or when working directly with people.) 2. A custom default was created by the company and not made obvious to the user. 3. The user had to proactively select "None" to remove the tip that was added by the company. 4. (not pictured) The itemized bill was collapsed, so to not show the user that the price had increased and a tip was added. As we roll into the busy holiday season, which is quickly followed by open enrollment for insurance and then tax season, it's important that users/consumers watch out for these patterns. And it's even more important that we as designers/technologist educate ourselves and practice ethical design. You can learn more about dark/deceptive patterns here: https://lnkd.in/gcZviv28 (I've purposely left out the company name, but trust that they are receiving feedback from me.) #darkpatterns #deceptivepatterns #uxdesign #uidesign #ecommerce

You know that feeling when a website makes you do something you didn't actually want to do? That's not an accident. It's engineered. These are called dark patterns, and they're design tactics that manipulate users into actions that benefit the company, not the user. They're everywhere, and they're deeply unethical. Here are the ones you've definitely encountered: 🪤 Roach Motel - Easy to subscribe in 2 clicks, but canceling requires calling customer service 😱 Confirmshaming - "No thanks, I hate saving money" or "No, I don't want to protect my family" ⏰ Fake Urgency - "Only 2 rooms left!" when it's not true, or countdown timers that magically reset 📧 Forced Continuity - Free trials that auto-convert to paid subscriptions without clear warning ☑️ Preselected Options - Boxes already checked for newsletters, data sharing, and upsells you never asked for Why do companies use them? Because they work. They increase conversions, reduce cancellations, and boost short-term metrics. But here's what they also do: They erode trust. They create resentment. They invite regulation (hello, GDPR and CCPA). And they attract customers who churn the moment they realize they've been tricked. Short-term gains from dark patterns create long-term losses in reputation and trust. The companies that win are the ones that treat users with respect. Which dark pattern annoys you most? Drop it in the comments.

Not every design principle should make your product more engaging. Some should protect people. You’ve probably seen Laws of UX, but its creator, Jon Yablonski also runs another brilliant project: humanebydesign.com It’s a framework for building digital products that respect users, not just attract them. Core principles: 1. Resilient → Design for the most vulnerable and anticipate misuse 2. Empowering → Centre on the value products provide to people  3. Finite → Respect people’s time and focus on meaningful content 4. Inclusive → Reflect the full range of human diversity 5. Intentional → Add friction where needed and favour long-term well-being 6. Respectful → Protect attention and digital health 7. Transparent → Be honest, clear, and free of dark patterns Honestly, I teach and implement this way too little myself, still stuck very much in the optimisation game. So this isn’t preaching, it’s sharing. And as usual with Yablonski’s work, the site is beautifully crafted, full of thoughtful illustrations and links to in-depth articles and research on each principle. So dive in, enjoy, just as I will!

Zepto, Blinkit, Instamart: When 10-Minute Delivery Comes With Hidden Costs Dark Patterns in Quick Commerce: Growth Hack or Ethical Red Flag? As Blinkit, Zepto, and Swiggy Instamart face serious allegations of manipulating prices and using dark patterns, it’s a sharp reminder of what unchecked growth in tech can lead to. The bigger concern isn't just about hidden charges or device-based pricing. It is about how design can quietly erode trust, especially when it favours business goals over user experience. 📌 What are dark patterns in this case? Interfaces are built to mislead. Options hidden in plain sight. Prices fluctuate based on the phone you use. Promos added without consent. Loyalty benefits that aren’t auto-applied but hidden behind a small checkbox. These aren’t just flaws. They’re strategic nudges pushing consumers into decisions they didn’t intend. 📌 Why this matters in 2025 more than ever When the cost of building a business is high and investor pressure is mounting, shortcuts seem tempting. But digital trust isn’t a luxury. It is currency. When a consumer feels manipulated, you don’t just lose a sale. You lose future growth. 📌 What can today’s entrepreneurs learn from this? - Scale is not just about faster delivery or bigger numbers. It’s about how responsibly you grow. - Your UI is not just design. It’s a communication tool. If it’s confusing or misleading, it becomes your brand voice. - Transparency is not just a policy. It’s a competitive edge. When you simplify your offering, people trust you more. - Customers don’t just buy convenience. They buy fairness. And fairness should never be an add-on. 📌 And for funded platforms Growth targets should never justify customer exploitation. Every dark pattern you use may help you hit numbers today, but will cost you community tomorrow. Building long-term consumer relationships takes consistency, not clever UI tricks. 📌 For the policy ecosystem As regulators step in, this will set the precedent for how Indian digital businesses are governed in the coming decade. Businesses need to be as innovative in ethics as they are in technology. 📌 For early-stage founders This is a moment to build trust-first businesses. If you are building anything that touches users at scale, ask yourself one thing every time you ship a feature: Is this empowering the user or manipulating them? Because what you design is what you stand for. The question now is simple: is growth worth it if you lose trust on the way? In a world racing for speed, who wins, the one who delivers first, or the one who earns trust forever? #fooddelivery #zepto #blinkit #swiggyinstamart #ecommerce #business

Solidcore, please do better: If you need to squint to find the "Unsubscribe" link in an email, that’s not clever design – it’s a dark pattern. Dark patterns are deceptive design choices that intentionally trick or manipulate users into doing things they might not otherwise do, like making it hard to unsubscribe, signing up for something by accident, or adding unwanted items to a cart. They prioritize short-term business metrics over long-term trust. In the email below, Solidcore hides their Unsubscribe link in tiny, dark gray text against a black background, nearly invisible to most users. This is a textbook dark pattern meant to reduce unsubscribes. It may drive slightly better short-term engagement but at what cost? The best brands make opting in and out, just as easy. Because great product and marketing teams build relationships based on mutual value, not manipulation. If your content is valuable, users will want it. If it isn’t, no amount of hidden links will keep them around. Let’s build better.