That is not what the sentence says at all. It simply says that "dark pattern" is a euphemism/harmless wording for what is done.

Your top level post reads as if people who use 'dark patterns' as a term have an agenda, and that agenda is fraud and psychological manipulation.

I read it as primarily saying that the thing which 'dark patterns' refers to is more plainly called "fraud and psychological manipulation, not so much that merely using 'dark patterns' as a euphemism is itself "fraud...etc." Suspicious perhaps, but as an indirect second-order thing.

It can be seen as ambiguous, but a lot of language relies on assumptions about what a reasonable person would be thinking. Which causes trouble if you're trying to express a contrary or startling opinion.

I don't think everyone who uses that term has an agenda. I'm sure most have good intentions, or just are naturally attracted to new buzzwords. It just so happens the term does play into the agenda of those who have one and who manipulate others psychologically in this way.

The whole topic is a sensitive one. I'm sure a sizeable number here on HN derive some direct or indirect profit from such practices (running, being employed in or having stock in a company that does this sort of thing, especially FAANGs) while also having some dissonant misgivings about how the internet and technology is evolving. Terms like 'dark patterns' only serve to deepen this confusion and create additional moral distance between such tech workers and the consequences of their work, even if they are not necessarily intended to be nefarious: therefore, we ought to discourage it whenever possible.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, none of what I say here will actually have an effect on any of this, but it's fun to discuss these topics all the same.

In any case, I don't see how any of this can be inferred from that single original sentence, but I'll take your word for it.

The term “dark pattern” refers to user interface design patterns. That’s where the “pattern” bit comes from. There was already a term for anti-pattern which referred to mistakes. I wanted a term that had a Machiavellian tone to it, so I chose “dark” (Star Wars, Harry Potter, why not?).

I’m not quite sure why this term proved to be so popular. I think it is helpful to have a term that is a little vague though, as it can be a lot of work to pin down whether something is truly deceptive with an outcome of harm - or just an annoying attempt to nudge.

Thanks for letting me know. Looking through the thread again after my initial off-the-cuff reaction, I'm starting to think that I may be reading too much into the term due to my own biases and assigning interpretations to people that they might not have. There's certainly more to say on this topic.

>I’m not quite sure why this term proved to be so popular.

Well, it does sound cool and memorable on its own...

I think if someone puts the pauses at different spots than you, the grammar changes substantially. Reading your replies I figured it out, but it reads like not everyone caught that so I thought it might help you sort out some of the reactions you’re getting.

As a non-native speaker, I appreciate the feedback. I have yet to master the intricacies of this language :)

I'm currently in a group that is fractious, and it's messing with my instincts to add social commentary when I see people arguing past each other.

I can't decide yet if this is a good or a bad thing but thank you for the appreciation.