I love the idea and spirit of Lemmy, I think decentralized and federated networks show a ton of promise…

However my experiences so far trying to engage in intelligent discussion/debate on Lemmy have been far more combative and frankly mean than I can ever recall on even the most “passionate” subreddits I participated in.

I think it’s a cross-section of the kinds of people who are enthusiastic about federated networks, and people who are knowledgeable enough to be early adopters here. But I’ll be honest, it has definitely cooled my interest in participating in discussion on Lemmy instances.

I don’t appreciate being called names or being accused of being a bad faith actor simply because I’m asking questions or challenging a viewpoint, and that seems to be the outcome of nearly every interaction here.

It doesn’t do any favors for changing the perception that Lemmy (and other federated platforms like Mastodon) are populated by terminally online keyboard warriors.

There’s a distinct feeling that if you support or even just use “traditional” (non-federated) platforms, or otherwise are not fully committed to 100% decentralization or open source, you are the enemy here.

I don’t want to go back to Reddit, and I won’t because of the absolutely abhorrent things their leadership has done and continues to do, but Lemmy users in my experience are overwhelmingly hostile and it sucks.

The source is Counterpoint Research as linked in the article - the 55% figure in the headline is misleading, the statistic is really “55% of new devices shipped”, not total market share.

It’s because the proposed changes would give the UK government de-facto authority to dictate how security and encryption are implemented.

…a provision that would give the UK government oversight of security changes to its products, including regular iOS software updates. The Home Office consultation proposes “mandating” operators to notify the home secretary of changes to a service that could have a “negative impact on investigatory powers”.

It would mean in practice that the UK would dictate how Apple employs encryption around the globe, unless Apple was willing to fork their software and build/maintain a UK-only branch for their products.

Which still wouldn’t solve the issue because if you interacted with someone over any of those protocols who was in the UK, your messages and data would be accessible by the UK government, regardless of the other party’s location.

I’m with Apple on this. This isn’t a consumer-focused piece of legislation for repairability/interoperability like some of the newer EU legislation, this is a government trying to ensure they have the technical ability to spy on their citizens and others. It’s the definition of anti-consumer.

What is Meta doing here? I’m not clear on what the point being made is.

If you’re insinuating that they are doing this to artificially inflate user counts, why wouldn’t they be reporting about how there are 2+ billion threads users in the first week?

They don’t need to manufacture hype - like Meta or not, in the first 96 hours they brought in almost 100 million users. Thats a third of Twitter’s entire active user base, in less than a week.

It’s not forced on you. If you don’t download Threads and log in, you’re not on threads.

This is akin to saying Google Calendar is “forced” on you if you have a Gmail account. They are separate services that use a common credential, you are under no obligation to use any or all of those services.

There’s plenty of things to hate Meta for, but this is inaccurate.

You log into Threads with your Instagram account. There’s no “shadow account”, you’re logging into a second service with the same account and credentials.

Your ticket entitles you to a seat, even if you don’t pick it yourself. You’ll just likely get stuck with a less desirable seat like a middle seat.

Saying it’s a weak example of asshole design does not equate to defending Amazon.

It’s possible for Amazon to be extremely predatory and shitty, as well as this not being a very good example of how shitty they are, at the same time.

…being within the same container does not make them both the same clickable target. Do you know from personal experience that clicking “Cancel anytime” is clickable? Because as I said, over two hours ago,

It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated. Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.

Oh you just did it! “Cancel anytime” is not underneath the button, it is part of the affirmative button. Part of.

…but it’s not part of the button. The yellow button that says “Continue with Amazon Prime” is fully contained within the yellow button that one would click to proceed.

I’m not sure how much clearer the decline option being on the left, and the proceed option on the right, highlighted in yellow, could be.

And again, the “Cancel anytime” subtext isn’t even clickable, so what deceptive action has Amazon engineered here? For someone to click on a non-clickable target?

There’s no arguing that this is stupid design, but that doesn’t make it asshole design. Hanlon’s razor and all that.

I’ve been pretty clear that Amazon is predatory and well-known to be shitty. I’ve been clear using my own example of how difficult it is to cancel Amazon Prime as a great example of hostile UI design.

It’s possible to have an intelligent conversation about how the specific example used in this post isn’t a very good representation of hostile design, especially compared to the other egregious things Amazon has done and continues to do.

You don’t need to resort to being rude, it’s okay to say you don’t agree.

The buttons are affirmative or refusal.

Yes, they are: the link on the left clearly states “Continue without Amazon Prime”, the button on the right clearly states “Continue with Amazon Prime”. I don’t share your view that “Cancel anytime” underneath that button is confusing.

The user shares some responsibility in reading what they are clicking on - this is also why “I didn’t read it” isn’t a valid legal defense against a contract or terms you agreed to.

We’re having a conversation, there’s really no need to be hostile. You’re allowed to have your own view, as am I.

And has “cancel …” like you’d expect on a cancel button. If you stop reading or are skimming (we all do it) you think it’s the cancel button. This is very likely a deliberate choice.

But there’s nothing to cancel here, so in this context there’s no basis for assumption that there would be a cancel button - cancel what? A subscription you don’t yet have? It’s not a logical conclusion.

Sure, we all skim sometimes, but this isn’t a 40 page terms of use document. There are less than 100 words in this entire screenshot. It takes less than 30 seconds to read everything on this page and make an informed decision.

I see your point, and of course each user’s interpretation is going to be different.

But I think you made another good point in your second paragraph - the effectiveness of these is dependent on user ignorance.

I’m not saying by any means that it’s the user’s fault if they fall prey to hostile UI, but there is some responsibility on the user to actually read what they’re clicking before they click, in the sense that you can protect yourself from a lot of scenarios like this just by taking a moment and reading.

I understand that’s easier said than done, trying to help my parents with technical support items is infuriating to watch them click “ok” on a dialog box and then ask you afterwards what it said - like, there’s an easy solution: read, then click. Not the other way around.

The examples in the FTC complaint are all well and good, and as I already said, Amazon sucks and their predatory practices are well-known, but this specific example, the one we’re talking about on this post, is pretty pedestrian.

If the OP were to post the 7-step process it takes to cancel a prime membership, that would be firmly and wholly in asshole design territory, I know, I’ve had to go through it myself. But just posting a screenshot of a mild upsell that has a clear set of binary options on opposite sides of the screen and saying “Amazon bad” doesn’t really contribute much - everyone knows Amazon sucks, and there are plenty of examples of them sucking, this just really isn’t a very good one.

It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated.

Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.

Why would it be two buttons on the right, and what behavior would you expect if “Cancel Anytime” was a button?

The goal of this is to get you to sign up for Prime, so there’s nothing yet to cancel.

This is “annoying” design in the sense that getting an upsell is annoying, but I don’t really see it as malicious/asshole.

You’re witnessing the birth of a meme, friend

ka chow