Preface: I really like what the site is showing, the below is more food for thought, and perhaps a wee-bit of direction for those looking to persue it deeper. Also forgive me, as it became time to proof read, it became beer time.

===========

I'm glad someone brought up behavioral economics...

Below I've pasted the abstract for the original paper, organ donor paper [1]:

"The well-documented shortage of donated organs suggests that greater effort should be made to increase the number of
individuals who decide to become potential donors. We examine the role of one factor: the no-action default for
agreement. We first argue that such decisions are constructed in response to the question, and therefore influenced by
the form of the question. We then describe research that shows that presumed consent increases agreement to be a
donor, and compare countries with opt-in (explicit consent) and opt-out (presumed consent) defaults. Our analysis
shows that opt-in countries have much higher rates of apparent agreement with donation, and a statistically significant
higher rate of donations, even with appropriate statistical controls. We close by discussing the costs and benefits
associated with both defaults as well as mandated choice"

1.) I think what the website is trying to illustrate, is more specific instances where this is applied for bad (fair critique!). However, I think the abstract above bring up an interesting question:

If the framing of an option(s) is causal [2] to it's propensity to be chosen; can one really be upset that their indifference is manipulated?

I want to talk about the "good" application of this which is (arguably?) donating organs. It saves lives, and as it turns out, is dependent strictly on our indifference [3]. I suppose I'm inviting criticism, but what's wrong with that? The idea of saving a life, by most, is considered noble [4]. Even more so, if it was, indeed, important for us to conciously decide on-- why wouldn't we [5]?

If it said:

"Check the box to not be shot with a shotgun, at a distance of 3 feet, in the face, immediately after you turn this in?"

... after a few incidents, social knowledge would spread of the option to drive awareness. It's cost would be measured, most likely choosing indifference would be greater than. I would like to propose the juxtaposition of awareness, reaction, and marginal cost to us is quite large. The point: one is important for us and one is not, the effort to spread awareness or be aware is greater than the potential(?) gain.

In the case of these businesses framing options for increasing profits, not that I think it's right [6], but is it really that dark? Aren't we essentially indifferent to the costs? Is that reason enough to be upset? Have any of these examples shown a cost which exceeds the cost of cognitively reasoning about it? If they have, and you do not opt-out, is there reason to be upset since the marginal utility of not-opting out is, matter of fact, greater to you, than opting out.

2.) If the examples shown on "Dark Patterns" are evil to you:

learn about behavior economics and to spread the knowledge you gain.

Learn about the roots, not symptoms, because the amount of change/awareness you'll be able to make is greater. Yes, it can be applied poorly, to decieve, but it's also can be applied for good. Being aware will make you less susceptible (not always, that's the gambler's fallacy) to mallace and probably make you insist on it for good (e.g. organ donating).

A great Behavioral Economics paper, that also cites the original organ donor work[1] is "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics" by Daniel Kahneman [7].

I think the exploration, and awareness, of the application of framing (menu) options is great. I just hope it doesn't stop there :)

[1] "Defaults and Donation Decisions"
Author(s): Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G. Goldstein
Source: http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/fi...

[2] Yeah I said it, causal. I ain't talkin' no correlations 'ere. It's like a hypothesis but less complete ...it's actually for emphasis not a to say I believe it's a physical law (ex. the speed of light).

[3] Using marginal utility is a way to remove indifference (I think it [indifference] is too hard to meaningfully measure) while maintaining the same conclusion. The marginal utility of filling out a form quickly, is greater than spending time deeply analyzing the cost and benefits of such a choice...

[4] Noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.
Source: Mac OS X Dictionary; definition. 2

[5] I find refuting this, in any sense, to be concerning and disheartening-- that is to suggest that a majority of people are inherently incapable. Should that be the case then I propose we as a species are incapable and prone to deciptive tactics. That would mean you too; you're no snowflake.

[6] I believe it's a symptom.

[7] "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics"
Author(s): Daniel Kahneman
Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 2003), pp. 1449-1475