It would have been a dark pattern if, just as an example, the "block" button was set as secondary action (in white) and the primary blue action was "cancel".
Comment on Firefox 148 introduces the promised AI kill switch for people who aren't into LLMs
dsilverz@calckey.world 2 days ago@Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
I'm not referring only to the feature per se, I'm also referring to any pop-up designed to appear throughout the navigation to "remind the user about the superb features".
Said pop-up is explicitly mentioned on their "confirmation dialog" upon turning off (screenshot attached below):
You won't see new or current AI enhancements in Firefox, or pop-ups about them.It speaks volumes about how much a dark pattern this is, the fact that the opt-off has a confirmation dialog, while the further proceeding with logging in with Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/Meta account doesn't seem to have a confirmation dialog.
And the fact that the confirmation feels "menacing" and defaulted to cancelling the opting-off (i.e. pressing "esc" or clicking outside the window; one must click the primary-colored "block" button which, contrasted to a grayish "Cancel" button, may psychologically induce the user into thinking "block" is a dangerous action), quite similar to the
about:config warning screen.Ah, and the clanker options: notice the lack of alternative options for those who want a custom clanker, such as DeepSeek, Qwen, Z AI, Brazilian Maritaca IA and Amazônia IA (to mention some non-Chinese LLMs), or even something running locally through ollama. Seemingly no option for using a custom, possibly self-hosted LLM endpoint. The fact that all the options offered are all heavily corporate options (with Mistral being the "least corporate" of them all, but still Global Northern nonetheless) might tell us something...
All of these dark patterns, among others not mentioned, are the object of my critique, not just the fact that Mozilla is shoving clankers unto Firefox.
Whenever a feature needs an invasive pop-up and the opt-out brings up a second pop-up that requires further confirmation (but none seems to be offered upon actually using said feature), it is called a dark pattern, no matter if said feature requires further configuration.
Attachment: s3.eu-central-2.wasabisys.com ↗
skamu@mastodon.uno 2 days ago
skamu@mastodon.uno 2 days ago
A modal in general is not defined as a dark pattern (not sure why you say that).
And in this case a modal is used to manage a user journey "subtask", which is a request to confirm a potential disruptive action: users may use firerox AI features for long, before deciding to turn them off, deeply changing their experience with the product.
I agree that it could have been done as a full page, but it is fine also as a modal on desktop (not mobile viewport)
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev
Maybe I'm overly idealistic when it comes to software but, IMHO, a software (especially a browser) should be the least distractive possible. My point about modals was about feature announcement pop-ups ("Now you can do Y... Click on Z menu to get into Y"), the ones which Mozilla Firefox explicitly mentioned within the confirmation dialog, as well as the said confirmation dialog which, as far as I could find about, is one-sided, for there are no confirmation dialog to the other action, which is to activate the clankers.
The ideal workflow, to me, is as follows: the user launches the browser software, the main UI opens minimalistically listing the most frequently accessed websites and the pinned bookmarks, the user clicks on some shortcut or types in some URL, then the browser fetches the network content from said website, parses it, fetches whatever else needs to be fetched for the specific website, renders it visible on the screen, then let the user interact with the page as they please, without a MS Clippy-like behavior of reminding the user "It looks like this page has links, you can summarize them using a clanker" on a frequent basis.
Lynx, for example, is the perfect example of this, it's not an utopia I'm imagining: I typelynxand I press enter, then Lynx executes and brings its TUI, then I press g and type the URL of a website, and it fetches and does what needs to be done in order to bring up the website to the TUI. No cluttered interface except for the short list of keyboard shortcuts at the bottom which don't require user interaction nor disturb the UX. That's KISS approach.
When a browser has a MS Clippy-like behavior and, most importantly, when a browser brings potentially unwanted features turned on by default, whose opt-out requires the user to go through some sort of gymnastics while the usage of said feature is asymmetrically easy (seemingly no "confirm you want to use the clanker? The clanker may have access to the following: page content, currently open tabs, credentials on the page, etc..." like the opt-out confirmation dialog lists exhaustively about "enhancements that will be unavailable while the user opts out of Firefox AI enhancements"), again: perhaps I'm being too pedantic but, to me, it smells, it looks, it behaves and it whispers like a dark pattern.skamu@mastodon.uno 1 day ago
Hi Deamon, don't get me wrong, modals in general are bad and it is a "last resource". However, I agree with the solution of Firefox's UX designer, asking for a confirmation before turning on/off the AI functionalities (as it is a disruptive action that affect overall users XD). We may argue that maybe it needed to be done via a full page... ? Or maybe not using a "switch" in the first place. Anyway, all good. It is nice to see people with this kind of concerns 👍
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev
asking for a confirmation before turning on/off the AI functionalities
The thing is, there doesn't seem to be confirmation before turning clankers on (at least I didn't find screenshots in this regard), but there is such a confirmation before turning the whole thing off (that is, from the default-on state Mozilla pushed unto the software upon updating/installing).
If both situations involved double confirmation dialog in a symmetrical manner ("are you sure you want to proceed with activating this feature?" coexisting with "are you sure you want to opt-off from this feature?"), that would be fair. Pretty annoying, but fair. But this fairness doesn't seem to be happening, no confirmation dialog seems to exist for actually using the feature. The only thing similar to a "confirmation" during further usage of "AI Enhancements" would be the authentication step from whatever clanker was chosen from the suspiciously-biased list of clankers (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama, Mistral; no non-Western options such as Qwen or DeepSeek, for example).as it is a disruptive action that affect overall users
How disruptive would be turning off a feature that is far from being essential to browsing (and, in practice, may end up rendering the whole browsing experience worse with inaccurate summarization and potential vulnerabilities (prompt injection, remote code execution, etc), produced by pieces of software explicitly labeled as "it may produce inaccuracies")?
Not to say how, as I mentioned initially, the entire premise of bringing it as default-on with now the added "right" to "opt-off" is, itself, non-consensual relationship, insofar the user didn't seek it by themselves. Clankers would be a nice feature for some niches and use cases (again: I myself use LLMs, but it stems from my own decision to do so, not because it was pushed onto me; something I opted-in), but it should be voluntarily sought, installed and turned on by the user as they please, not as "default-on" option.Anyway, all good. It is nice to see people with this kind of concerns
Sure, no problems, that's reciprocal, we're good! Throughout my exchanges in this entire thread, I tried to keep it respectful (at least when it comes to the debate and my peers; of course I'm fiercely criticizing Mozilla Corporation, because they were once the ones who "will never sell your data") and trying to debate the idea and not the peer's person.
My concerns, in the end of the day, are just an attempt to advocate for the total, non-negotiable autonomy and Free Will (as far as Free Will can get in a deterministic cosmic existence) of users, far from just my own; and this involves denouncing potential corporate biases whenever a corporation brings up another brick in the already-tall wall of enshittification, naming and shaming corporations for their greedy corporate behavior.
Feyd@programming.dev 1 day ago
It looks like this page has links, you can summarize them using a clanker” on a frequent basis.
That doesn’t happen. I don’t recall firefox ever popping up a modal while I’m browsing.
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
Maybe you got lucky and the routine which triggers said pop-ups didn't happen yet, doesn't mean that "that doesn't happen". Again: Firefox literally mentions pop-ups about "AI enhancement" features, it's not something I'm confabulating:Block AI enhancements? You won't see new or current AI enhancements in Firefox, or pop-ups about them.
It's ipsis literis from the Firefox opt-out confirmation dialog. They wouldn't mention said pop-ups if they weren't to happen.
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@skamu@mastodon.uno @technology@lemmy.world @Feyd@programming.dev
Post scriptum (I'm unable to edit my replies using Sharkey): regarding the dark pattern within the modal from the opt-out confirmation dialog, I explained my understanding of it on a reply to Feyd (my reply that starts with "When we develop a system..." and explored the psychological/behavioral aspects of user interface development). I didn't link it directly here because, as I'm using Sharkey, my link to my reply would likely leave the Lemmy environment into the Sharkey environment.
skamu@mastodon.uno 2 days ago
PS, I don't like this AI move of FF, I actually uninstalled it after years and years because of that.
Feyd@programming.dev 2 days ago
I don’t think it’s menacing at all. It gives an informative list of features, which is nice to know. I could see a lot of people wanting to turn off all AI then realizing they actually want local translate instead of sending everything to google.
And you’ve got the button intents mixed up. Primary color is always the encouraged action in that kind of design. Dark pattern would be if the colors were flipped.
dsilverz@calckey.world 2 days ago
@Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
When we develop a system (I used to work as a DevOps for almost 10 years), the technical aspects aren't the only aspects being accounted for: especially when it comes to the front-end (i.e. the UI the user sees, the UX how user interaction will happen and how it may be perceived by them), psychology (especially behaviorism) is sine qua non.
Shapes and colors often carry archetypal meanings: a red element feels "dangerous", a window with a yellow triangle icon feels to be "warning" about something, a green button feels "okayish". I mean, those are the exact same principles behind traffic lights.
And signs and symbols, ruling the world, don't exist in a vacuum: a colored button besides a monochromatic button may, psychologically, lead to a feeling that the colored button is the proper way to proceed.
But... there's a twist: imagine you have a light-gray "Cancel" and a colored (regardless of the color) "Block". "Block" is a strong word. The length of the label text also does impart psychological effects. The human brain may see: "huh, I have this button which reads 'block' and it's quite strong, and this other button which reads 'cancel' and it's more easy to the eyes, maybe 'block' is dangerous". Contrast matters: the comparison between a substrate and the substances is pretty much how we're wired to navigate this world as living beings.
Now, corporations such as Apple (Safari), Google (Chromium), and very likely Mozilla (Firefox) as well, they have entire hordes of psychologists directly working for them, likely the same psychologists who'll work together with their HR departments for evaluating the candidates who applied for a job position there. These psychologists, and/or psychoanalysts, they know about Jungian archetypes, they know about fight-or-flight response and other facets of our deeply-ingrained instincts, they know about how colors are generally perceived by the human brain. Those psychologists likely played a role when a brand was chosen, or when an advertisement pitch was made. They know what they're doing.
UX/UI decisions are far from random choices from the leading team of project management engineers, it involved designers with psychologists. Again: they know what they're doing, they know it pretty well. They know how the users are likely to keep the functionality. They know how the users, as Ulrich said, are very unlikely to touch the settings, likely to keep the defaults, no matter what those defaults are. Because they know humans are driven by the "least-effort" instinct, which is quite of a fundamental principle shared among living beings as a byproduct of the "lowest energetic point" (thermodynamic equilibrium) principle.
To me, a former full-stack developer, the newer Firefox interfaces don't feel like Firefox is being psychologically fair and honest with the user's mind. Dark patterns are often subtle, and they're part of a purposeful, corporate decision.
Orygin@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
What a load of horse shit. You don’t have any clue what you’re talking about and it shows.
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@Orygin@sh.itjust.works @technology@lemmy.world
While some of the intricacies I brought into this discussion may stem from my specific, neurodivergent/AuDHD perception of the world, the overall thing involving dark pattern and the psychological influence of design is not something I'm inventing: it's literally an intersection between design and psychology, extensively researched by academia:
- "The Psychology of Design: Understanding User Behavior to Enhance User Experience", International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (www.jetir.org), ISSN:2349-5162, Vol.9, Issue 12, page no.g529-g534, December-2022, http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2212681.pdf
- "The application of color theory in UI/UX design", Milot Gusia, UBT international conference, 2024, https://knowledgecenter.ubt-uni.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4924&context=conference
- "Dark patterns and consumer vulnerability", Amit Zac et al, Cambridge University Press, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-policy/article/dark-patterns-and-consumer-vulnerability/83EF6347CCB19EDA195C54229D34D3A8
But, you know what? Yeah, it's all horse shit, corporations don't exploit the vulnerabilities involuntarily ingrained within our brains since our births for profit, Mozilla (alongside Google who gives them money to keep Google Gemini clanker formerly Google Search as the default search engine) is a such an innocent (practically angelical) very-friendly corporation with a cute fox mascot, and I am just a pretending-to-be DevOps who clearly have no clue what I'm talking about...
XLE@piefed.social 1 day ago
The most menacing thing in that picture is the bold red text, assuming it isn’t Photoshopped that way. I’ve seen Firefox implement other dark patterns, including hiding the ability to disable ads from within the homepage… But this isn’t really one of them.
It’s also true that Mozilla only supports selected AI (and search) companies, presumably the ones that give them money. Users have been begging Mozilla for StartPage integration, but Mozilla gave them a Perplexity integration instead. Firefox initially supported local LLMs in their AI sidebar, but they hid that option early on. It definitely paints all their talk about “choice” in a bad light.
dsilverz@calckey.world 1 day ago
@XLE@piefed.social @Feyd@programming.dev @technology@lemmy.world
I'm interacting from Sharkey, on a Lemmy thread, and you're interacting from PieFed. I'm not sure if PieFed fetches the alt-text from images. If you access my original Sharkey note, you'll see the following alt-text:I disclosed the fact that "or pop-ups about them" was highlighted. Also, a quick reverse image search would point to the original picture where said excerpt isn't highlighted.It would be photoshopping/photo manipulation if I removed, added or changed text from the picture, which I didn't.Exactly, and even this one is a matter of conundrum when it's brought to the table. Because Mozilla, and corporations in general, know the exact, dosimetric approach of pushing dark patterns, not too hard so all the user base would readily notice and complain, not too soft so all the shareholders wouldn't see the "graph line go up". Just the right amount to make things dance to their song.
Even today, stating how the opting-out of "Sponsored shortcuts" isn't trivial for the average user (not to mention how said user will see the sponsored shortcuts at least once as they head to turn them off), is met with people blindly advocating for Mozilla (which, let us remember, they're a corporation with corporate interests, not a lifelong friend or a fellow trustworthy acquaintance, and corporations are driven by profit, not by friendship or psychological well-being).The opt-out implies a feature that was pushed without consent.
Again, I bring my heavy hypothetical example: if a harasser offers the harassed a way out of the harassment after having initiated the harassment, would this make the harasser less of a harasser? Hell no, of course no! It's still harassment! It turns out opt-out features are exactly that: something that gives you the "right" to leave, only after it was pushed onto you.
And The fact that "opting-out" requires double confirmation only makes it worse, as if the hypothetical harassed were to be ask by the hypothetical harasser "are you sure you don't want this?" before being "allowed" to be freed from the hypothetical harassment. Exactly, another dark pattern, and another proof of how Mozilla is not a friend, but a corporation.Yeah. And this is often the justification people often use to advocate for that: "oh, but Mozilla needs to mane money" (at what cost?), as if donation-based economy weren't a thing.