Comment by dwedge
8 months ago
I was cancelling my annual slack premium last month and had to click to acknowledge that some of my members are using the AI features and they will lose access to them.
They then offered me a discount and if I refused there was another checkbox where I accepted that I was about to cause disruption for other staff.
I was tempted to take the deal until that point, but I'm the only member of the organisation and I absolutely do not use their AI
That sounds quite a bit like fraud.
Pretty sure it's perfectly legal marketing at least in the US.
They are verifiably false statements made for the purpose of monetary gain. I guess the question would hinge on intent: did they just forget to check if anyone is using those features and if there is anyone who would be disrupted, or are they intentionally deceiving users by purposefully not checking?
12 replies →
It's just incredible that billion dollar companies are copying the dark patterns from last decade's shadiest developers.
On the contrary it is extremely natural that they do this - when the only thing that matters is revenue and morals are just a roadblock this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do
What's the difference? Ransomware gangs aren't evil, they just want to make easy money and don't care about morals. That is also the definition of a for-profit company.
Fixed! Disabled those messages wherever org size = 1. Thank you, Slack*
(*not actually Slack just annoyed by this scheme, boo)
Oh so there’s a history of dark patterns too? Colour me surprised.