It's not quite as bad as I expected (still bad), since it does at least clearly tell you how to not buy it, in normal size type even. Except then they decided to make it out of place alphabetically (and it seems to have moved at least once, since the other article says it was "between Denmark and Finland" because it was sorted under "don't").
Cool website. It’s a pity it’s no longer a wiki. Perhaps if you used the extension RequestAccount with a restriction of editing to only confirmed users you would be able to keep it a wiki.
100% agree this is solvable with words and conventional form fields. But also - it’s usually bad idea to disable a form submit button. It deprives the system an opportunity to tell the user what they need to do (i.e. if it’s disabled you can’t show an error message) and for the same reason it’s bad for accessibility.
This doesnt really apply to the language selection, which is somewhat ironic. You can tell the users what they need to do, but... which language do you use to tell them to?
To add to this - did you notice the terribly ineffective demo scenario?
In the video, the WSJ reporter searches for the term "Brown leather bag" and ends up finding what appears to be an AI generated / stock image of a brown leather bag inside a PDF that has zero relevant textual content about brown leather bags.
Of all the things a user might be looking for with that search term, it's not going to be this!
Digital Markets Act, Article 13. Anti-circumvention
"The gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof."
Ooh, this is my Twitter account. Hello everyone! A few comments:
1) This is from 2022. At the time, Adobe's CPO Scott Belsky responded saying "we can do better". Perhaps Adobe have adjusted their UI since then, I haven't checked. [EDIT] - I've just learned that there is an ongoing FTC investigation: https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1735565342565343417
2) I explain this example in a bit more detail in a talk I gave at a European Parliament IMCO public hearing, about a year ago. The part about Adobe starts at roughly 3m30s. https://vimeo.com/710684291
3) If you find this topic interesting, I run the website deceptive.design which catalogs examples like this, along with legal cases and laws. I've also written a book on this topic: https://www.deceptive.design/book
This website (formerly darkpatterns.org) was launched in 2010 and had a warm reception on hacker news. It has just had a big update with new sections on laws and legal cases, so you can have a better understanding of what might be illegal or risky to build.
As far as I can tell, this doesn't aim to stop the use of student learning data to support student learning. I think it's about the "other stuff", like selling PII to third parties or using it for targeted advertising.
Then that should clarified by the FTC. As you can see from other comments, it appears that some people want to stop the use of student learning data to support student learning.
Educational systems fundamentally need to collect data on student learning progress. It is how education functions as a system. Lumping together the unethical (selling PII) and the ethical (continuous improvement) is very problematic.
It's clarified in the actual policy statement [0][PDF].
Particularly:
> must not condition participation in any activity on a child disclosing more
information than is reasonably necessary for the child to participate in that activity.
> are strictly limited in how they can use the personal information they collect from children. For example, operators of ed tech that collect personal information pursuant to school authorization may use such information only to provide the requested online education service.
They're not prohibiting the collection of data, they're strictly limiting what can be done with it.
I think this is good middle-ground privacy policy in general.
> must not condition participation in any activity on a child disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary for the child to participate in that activity
That may prevent gathering data about, for instance, their performance on other related skills.
> are strictly limited in how they can use the personal information they collect from children. For example, operators of ed tech that collect personal information pursuant to school authorization may use such information only to provide the requested online education service
How about using their PII to link data sources together? That might be done for the improvement of related systems, rather than to provide the educational service used by the child. I mean it’s arguable, but this could create a real chilling effect.
