There is nothing to suggest dark UX patterns were at play here. People simply gave Facebook access to everything because it was fashionable and convenient.
People simply do not care about their privacy if its in conflict with convenience. It has been common knowledge for years that Facebook will directly use that data against you and still people, completely aware of this, didn't care.
The only thing that made people care about their loss of privacy was a change in fashion. A new trend. Somehow, now, it is suddenly bad where before it wasn't. I simply cannot find the words to blame Facebook for this.
It's probably like a spouse having racy pictures of you, and now you've found out they've done something bad with racy pictures of previous spouses. You gave them the pictures, and now you feel uncomfortable that you did. Legally you gave them permission, but how you feel about it has changed.
Also, Zuck arguing he has your consent is like the spouse saying "You mumbled 'okay' when I badgered to take pictures of you naked! That's permission!". Also Zuck saying it's secure is like your spouse having those pictures in a Windows share in his frat house but telling his frat bros "tell me that you agree not to look at those pictures." (More like your spouse saying the small print says he's allowed to distribute those pics to other people, but only if they promise not to misuse them...).
> People simply do not care about their privacy if its in conflict with convenience
is only partially correct.
So far I have been able to distinguish these kinds of people:
- people unaware
- people aware that try their best to keep privacy (if they are on facebook, they limit their usage - more or less like "lurkers")
- people aware and still posting stuff on FB/giving some permissions and they still do "something" (a bit more than lurkers above)
- people aware but "I don't have anything to hide", yet still unaware of the full potential of lack of privacy and they post whatever they want
- people aware and educated about privacy and "I don't have anything to hide" (yes, they do exist) and they still post whatever they want
> I simply cannot find the words to blame Facebook for this.
I have to disagree here as well. There are certain things which I agree with you on, e.g., this feature was enabled by default, because users want to have more convenience. Indeed! However, what about last week's scandal with Cambridge Analytica? And what else aren't we aware of? I am trying my best not to connect these two facts, yet, it seems there is a pattern when it's about user data => who cares, they don't know what they want.
> However, what about last week's scandal with Cambridge Analytica?
This isn't news to me. Any data submitted by a user to Facebook is forever surrendered to Facebook who then owns it. Facebook can do whatever they want with their property.
The only surprise there is that users so happily agree to this madness only to be shocked by the result. What did they think was going to happen? Still, I don't blame Facebook for this.
It reminds me how people (Twitter addicts) were shocked at this website 10 years ago: http://pleaserobme.com/
The no button is barely recognizable as button. But the No button is barely recognizable as a button and it and the explanation are gray on white, while the Yes button and misleading title are much more emphasized. And even half the explanation is bullshit like "better experience for everyone". Plenty dark UX in my book.
(Though I assume a lot of people would have agreed to this, even without the dubious UI)
I'm a frequent Facebook user, and I'm connected to most of my relatives and close friends on Facebook.
I have absolutely no need to share my phone contact list(where I have numbers of colleagues and people who I wouldn't call friends) to Facebook.
When you install malware on your computer, it asks for permission too. People don't understand why their USB drive suddenly needs their account password, but they need to get the files that are stored on there so they type it in. That UAC popup may as well be triggered at random based on how often it shows up, and it never explains why.
Is that consent? Do you have a hard time finding the words to blame the malware creators?
I mainly use Kubuntu, but on MS Windows IIRC UAC popups day "ABC.exe needs permission to modify your computer" (or similar), that's some explanation at least. If you've no idea what that program is or why it suddenly needs permission then you can refuse (or seek help).
It's not great, but it's a little better than you suggest.
The difference there is that malware actually is a dark pattern and operates without your permission. Facebook is not a dark pattern and is nothing if you do not willingly surrender your data to their legal ownership.
People simply do not care about their privacy if its in conflict with convenience. It has been common knowledge for years that Facebook will directly use that data against you and still people, completely aware of this, didn't care.
The only thing that made people care about their loss of privacy was a change in fashion. A new trend. Somehow, now, it is suddenly bad where before it wasn't. I simply cannot find the words to blame Facebook for this.