The worst mainstream example of this I know of is PayPal.
Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better for them).
Bank withdrawals carry a risk of overdraft fees, have fewer consumer protections, and lack the rewards programs and other benefits of cards. But they cost less for PayPal. Merchants don't pay any less though -- it's how PayPal makes money.
Each and every time it defaults to bank withdrawals. You have to hit "Change" to select your card, every time. There's no way to change the default to your card. The only reason for this UI is to steer customers away from their best interests.
> Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better for them).
You're being hyperbolic, or don't know what predicated means. This defaulting to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their history; they've been profitable for more than 10 years without that. Their fees are also sufficient to make a profit on credit card transactions, so their business would not fail should everyone opt-out of paying by ACH.
There are reasons for PayPal to want you to use ACH over a credit card beyond simply increasing profits, too. They're just as much victims of credit card fraud as their merchants. It's the card networks' fault that almost anyone in the world can pick up a Visa/MasterCard card, use it to buy something on eBay, then charge back the payment after they get the item. PayPal's the one getting the chargeback, and they're not exempt from the card networks' requirements on maximum chargeback rates. It's an existential threat to their business, always has been.
This defaulting to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their history;
I've had a paypal account since before Ebay bought them and they've always used sneaky user interface tricks to push customers into using bank transfers over credit cards. It was the first thing I noticed about them after signing up.
That's right, PayPal has always worked this way. In fact, it's only fairly recently that it let me switch to a credit card without putting up a warning page about all the benefits I'd get by using my checking account instead of a credit card.
Taking your point, I wonder if honestly would be a better policy.
Credit Cards essentially cost paypal more. A more honest solution might be pricing in the cost of credit card transactions fees and chargeback/fraud risk to the customer. I have no doubt this would be bad for conversion rates. It introduces huge friction, going from 0 cost to small percentage costs.
The way they do it now allows users to segment themselves. If you have a strong preference for using credit cards, it's available. If not, well then paypal does. They choose if you don't.
It's like an opt out system. In a lot of cases, thats a good system. For example, I think organ donation should use that system.
The PayPal equivalent would be if you had to opt-out of organ donation every morning and it never remembered your preference. That is a bad faith system.
I'm no fan of PayPal, but I interpret this as a reflection of the state of the banking industry rather than scummy behavior on PayPal's part. Cards skim a ton off the top and are generally designed to gouge the merchant (i.e. PayPal) so customers remain blissfully unaware and keep using them; banks aren't making much effort to compete with direct transfers, probably because they get kickbacks from debit card use.
+1. That's the only way to use PayPal as a consumer. If you're just a buyer and not a seller, there's no advantage to you to tell them about your bank account. They make some noise about a sending limit until you verify with a bank account, but I've never had any transactions run into that.
I had my bank account connected to PayPal once, but deleted the association a few years ago. Somewhat surprisingly in the modern world of phantom deletion, there's never been any sign of it reappearing or Paypal trying to use or access it for anything. Each Paypal purchase uses only my credit card with no accidental way to do anything else.
Politely, I know you think you're helping people by maintaining awareness of the NSA, but a passing mention of Lavabit on a PayPal thread doesn't warrant a a tangent about the NSA and privacy. It seems kind of obsessive.
This assumes your last subscription was in the last 7 days and you know when the money gets withdrawn. Some subscriptions are not monthly, so you end up having to search for a specific subscription you know of to click on to get to the secret My preapproved payments page.
Of course, the polite way of handling subscriptions would be having a link to this page in the menu. Sort of like how there are links to all of the other things you can do.
Does this feature honestly not seem hidden to you compared to the other things you can do on PayPal?
Hi, I'm the guy who started darkpatterns.org. It's nice to see it popping up on HN every now and then. We're actually looking for contributors to help edit and update the content. If anyone is interested, drop us a line (contact details on the site). It's intended to be a community project and we'd love to see a lot more faces and names on the about page.
My comments: I'm that guy who uses NoScript/ScriptSafe to disable JS on most sites. Took me several minutes to figure out what combination of hosts I had to enable to play your slideshow.
My suggestion: find a simpler tool to display your slideshow.
Otherwise: a pretty decent collection of horrors.
I'll also note I'm that guy who generally avoids shopping online if at all possible. I'll do a lot of online research, but prefer patronizing local stores if possible, and paying cash. Why? Because:
- You know what you're getting when you buy it.
- When the deal is done the deal is done. No late-hit fees or follow-on solicitations.
- Generally a much easier returns policy, should that be necessary.
Yes, for some items, there's less choice (though you can special order a great deal of stuff), and there are some things I will purchase online (air travel on the rare occasions I feel it utterly necessary to humiliate myself before airport security).
Honestly, usually it's not worth my trouble. I fairly frequently encounter pages which fail to function with _all_ JS enabled (possibly due to XSS usage, I haven't troubleshot them, really not a productive use of my time in general). Given that plain Jane HTML is fine for presenting textual / graphical content this is pretty much an anti-pattern.
But it's perfectly reasonable to let someone know that the website might be broken for those to whom it is most likely to appeal. A more precise suggestion about how to fix it would have been nice, however.
Those who know/have cause to/have manifestation of paranoia that manifests as turn off javascript completely are certainly more likely to see the appeal for the slide show. I only made it about halfway through. Not that it's not an important topic, but not my top priority right now. A syllabus would have been useful so that I may see if I have missed something without having to spend another 10 minutes.
It can be quite useful for someone to make a suggestion that can make the website have larger appeal. It just can be. I count my suggestion for a syllabus as one.
But as a stronger example, aljazeera.com recently started redirecting ips from the US to the subdomain america.aljazeera.com. I couldn't get around it without a proxy. I wrote them an email suggesting they make the old site ("english") an option from the front page (I pointed to CNN.com as an example). They wrote me back saying they changed it and, when I went there, they even had a pop-up that allowed me to have the english site as my default. They had deliberately put in the functionality but didn't realize that some of us wanted their European coverage, not their America coverage.
In this case maybe the site will offer alternative formats. Maybe they hadn't thought of it.
I also have sites that ignore non-javascript enabled browsers- but they are web-apps and are explicit about the need for js. If I had a normal site with a widget that broke for certain people I very well might take such a comment into serious consideration. It is more helpful, as I said earlier, if such criticism also suggests something that might work well. Otherwise it just sounds like bitching.
It is listed as such Previous followed by Next. So when I got to the Disguied Ads page, I clicked the last link on the page expecting it to take me to the next page, instead it took me back to the previous page!
>Behind the scenes, however, they engage in all kinds of “optimizations” that encourage gamblers to spend and play more without stopping or burning out.
I have often wondered about this but never knew this was so universal. The Ryanair example is unforgettable. For someone taking first steps in to UI design, this came at a great time for me.
i don't think so, there's no real malicious intent there. perhaps you should consider why you don't get more signups after a demo instead, i would expect more. maybe it's a good thing to get less signups with the demo button where it was, because signups that don't actually use the service are basically the same as a demo anyway.
There's a dichotomy here on HN:
Best marketing practice generally praises upselling and A/B testing conversions to increase sales and profits.
But, taking these to a natural conclusion typically results in exactly the Dark Patterns we see here: where users are tricked or misled into agreeing to things they might not if they were offered clear, open and full disclosure upfront.
We can identify dark patterns - but in many cases, these are here because they work. At least, large international businesses such as RyanAir believe that they have a positive outcome which overwhelms any damage to the brand.
I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but viable/competitive businesses?
> I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but viable/competitive businesses?
All other things being equal, you can't. If there are dark patterns that empirically do increase competitiveness in the market of interest at the cost of violating things you hold to be ethical principles, you aren't going to be competitive without employing them unless you have some other non-duplicated market-relevant advantage that compensates for the disadvantage of ethics, unless you can change the market context to eliminate the effectiveness of the dark patterns.
I think you're right here, but the qualifier "all things being equal" can't be taken lightly. Rarely if never are "all things equal." I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary. We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the user actually feeling good about how they were duped.
This kinda reminds me of the talk PG gave at 2008 start up school titled "Be Good." (http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc) He outlines many ways why it's not merely ethically appropriate to be good, but also a strategically superior approach to running a startup. Ease of use, simplicity, trustworthiness--these are important qualities of a biz's reputation, both internally and in public perception. And Dark patterns tend to harm that reputation.
Edit: Addendum--obviously there are monopolies or monopoly-like situations where reputation isn't important.
> I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary.
If the dark patterns empirically work, then a market context shift is necessary.
> We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the user actually feeling good about how they were duped.
If they had enough of a "bad edge" that they didn't actually work to increase the returns realized by a business--then they wouldn't be an issue, as there'd be no incentive to use them.
1) Dark patterns do empirically work, that's the whole point.
2) Market won't magically shift - they work based on homo sapiens basic psychology, and that won't change so soon. However, dark patterns can (and are) reduced by making them illegal - effective consumer protection / truthful advertising laws can mitigate them. For example, if 'I agree' opt-out boxes are legally considered invalid, then it makes sense to use opt-in subscriptions; similarly for other [mis]representations.
Sometimes the "bad edge" effect is cumulative over time. This can lead to a new entrant to the market suddenly gaining a lot of market share, because so many people have gotten fed up with the dominant player. So maybe the dark patterns work well, until suddenly they nose-dive, because everyone's switched to the less annoying alternative.
A/B testing only tells you what works today, not what's going to keep your customers satisfied in the long run.
Dark patterns confuse the user in to spending money, whether they want your product or not. A/B testing communicates the value of your product, and the customer wants to give you money.
A/B testing empirically measures the value of any technique to improve the value being optimized; if you the value you are optimizing for (based on what it is you are measuring in the A/B test) is not "effectively communicates the value of your product", but, e.g., "increases conversions", then dark patterns which optimize the value sought (increasing conversions) by "confusing the user into spending money" will be favored by A/B testing.
There is nothing intrinsically favoring honest communication or opposing dark patterns about A/B testing.
I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but viable/competitive businesses?
There is no way to "resolve" the fact that there are always ways to make money unethically, there are always people taking advantage of them, and if you are a human being you will always feel a twinge of regret and unfairness that you can't join in the fun.
Is that really a dichotomy? Tricking or misleading customers may increase conversions and upselling, but you don't need to do that to achieve that goal. Instead you can offer legitimate value and information that might help a customer make such a choice.
That doesn't stop them from adding dark patterns on top. Acting with business interests in mind, airlines are practically compelled to add dark patterns.
Other airlines have moved towards RyanAir's model, not away from it.
I find that frightening, as an ethical person who wants to run a business.
They add them because people most often choose the cheapest flight.
Lets say you have two airlines that both need to offer a flight for $300 in order to make a reasonable profit. If one shifts $15 of that cost to bag fees, then people will choose that one even though the end cost is the same. The other airlines have to follow suit or they will fail to stay competitive.
RyanAir is not the dark pattern. The tricked-into-insurance aspect is.
Your comment was regarding conversions and upselling (purporting it as a dichotomy to do those yet deride dark patterns), yet neither of those ever need dark patterns -- if you have a compelling pitch that makes the customer knowingly and intentionally choose the option, you have legitimate business gains.
Thanks to the author for including RyanAir's awful booking reservation website. This piece of garbage is filled with traps and puzzles in order to sneak additional costs onto you. God I hate this carrier a well as the world's "cheaper is better" attitude.
I recently tried to book a Ryanair flight. I cancelled in disgust when I got an "error" message that read something like, "Error: You didn't select a bus sightseeing tour option".
Instead I chose to fly with a competitor, operating out of a less convenient airport, but with a less scummy online purchase process.
However Ryanair had a 2012 net income of €374 million. That implies their scummy model is successful. This makes me sad.
It makes a great next-generatin Turing Test -- given zero information about the website (like a person just going to it for the first time), can an artificial intelligence book something on the Ryan Air website with no upsell purchases and not letting the booking process time out (which seems to be between 5 and 30 seconds for each of their 14 steps)?
You can do cheap properly. Look at WestJet in Canada (also in the States now, I believe): cheap, no frills, and great service with friendly staff. One of their claims to fame is that, when starting out, they lacked the money to pay competitive wages and so had a very generous equity scheme. This resulted, at one point, in over 40% of their staff being millionaires. When you have that kind of stake in the company's reputation and success, the level of give-a-shit rises substantially.
> God I hate this carrier a well as the world's "cheaper is better" attitude.
RyanAir has enabled people who could not afford to travel in the past to be able to do so (especially in Europe, where many immigrants have family in North Africa/Eastern countries). While I share your contempt for some of RyanAir's practices, I do think that low cost flights are good for society as a whole.
Godaddy is basically scrolldown+click correct button three times.
Ryanair is trap upon trap. Radiobuttons and checkboxes all over the place, and if you forget to confirm not wanting a bag you have to start over on that page and hit all the right settings again. Multiply that five-six times...
(And I wouldn't be surprised if Parsons and O'Leary are buddies.)
Bulk Register (eNom) puts bogus products in your cart when you purchase a domain like 'free' trials of cloud storage or automatic mobile website generation EVERY single time you buy or renew a domain name. If you miss the fact that they snuck it in there, they start billing you after a month. Just a crappy way to do business.
I've never had to deal with RyanAir, but I have to give them credit for their criticism of all the bullshit with airport security - this what their website actually looked like for at least a day:
One of the most Pavlovian I've encountered is in InAppPurchases. A confirm button will be repeated in the same corner of a dialog box 9 out of 10 times, but the 10th time it will be replaced with a single-click purchase.
Basically the UI Is set up to purposefully hotswap to confuse the user into accidental purchases.
I've also seen purchase buttons placed extremely near edges in order to capture edge gestures and convert them into purchases.
Used on several of gamelofts latest free to play games.
Yep. Single click purchases shouldn't be utilized as much on mobile devices. The state of mobile apps is such that it's already not intensive to get to a checkout page where you buy something; it's not like Amazon where you might jump through 4-5 pages of confirmations and it's useful to seasoned buyers. Apps are so much smaller (comparatively) than entire websites that really you just need to tap a button from the options/main menu and then get to the selection area before payment. There's no address to put it, or shipping details that a "one-tap" could bypass and expediate.
I think whoever first thought, "Let's port one-click purchases to mobile!" either was being disingenuous or was only successful because it was used in an unintended, quasi-fraudulent way.
Open question: as a startup grows and matures, even if it is originally entirely designed with honest user objectives in mind, where usability and simplicity are paramount, at some point there will be calls to increase revenues - either in response to declining growth, market saturation, or simply to maintain existing growth.
Is there any way to structure the incentives of a business to prevent this from happening as a business grows?
Intuitively there is an argument that maintaining simplicity will improve word-of-mouth and conversion rates, but in reality it (unfortunately, perhaps) absolutely is the case that revenue can be massively increased by introducing all kinds of additional advertising, up/cross-sells, and ultimately, dark patterns.
Intuitively there is an argument that maintaining simplicity will improve word-of-mouth and conversion rates, but in reality it (unfortunately, perhaps) absolutely is the case that revenue can be massively increased by introducing all kinds of additional advertising, up/cross-sells, and ultimately, dark patterns.
I wonder how true that really is. We’ve recently been looking into advertising options for a new service, and to say that the experience we’ve had trying to arrange Facebook and Google ads has been terrible would be very kind to Facebook and Google. I reckon Facebook have lost half the money we’d have spent with them just through UI failures, up to and including literally not being able to place ads sometimes because their pages simply didn’t work. Google have to date lost 100% of the money we were considering giving to them because we couldn’t figure out what we were getting for our money within a reasonable period of time and whether it was likely to have a reasonable RoI compared to our other options.
As a small business, of course we have only so much financial budget to spend across all advertising channels, but we have even less time for busy founders to figure out where to spend it. A simple “Pay this, get that” kind of deal is much more attractive than these vague, auction-based on-line advertising systems where half the numbers they report seem wildly inconsistent from one page to the next. I’m not sure whether those schemes are intended to be a dark pattern or whether they just feel like it because of their inherently vague nature and frequently appalling UI, but they seem pretty close to the line to me.
Ironically, the unclear deal also makes us hesitant to use these services for our own advertising, for fear of effectively becoming unwelcome advertisers ourselves. I loathe spammers as much as anyone, and on top of that we operate in a relatively small and very social market, so not knowing whether we’re showing marketing material to people who are actually likely to be interested is a big turn-off for us. So I guess as well as being another possible example of a dark pattern, this is also an example of poor UI clearly decreasing revenues rather than increasing them.
Dark patterns are a short-term tradeoff. Ultimately, though your customers will resent you.
Its easy for stakeholders to say "So what? We loose a few customers!"
However, your company really might be loosing a potential investor, a potential business partner, a potential star hire or a potential product champion.
Ambitious companies don't use dark patterns but dying companies do.
I used to believe this - but once you reach a certain scale and number of users, they do not notice small things - especially if they are average everyday people.
We are all hyper-sensitive to design, functionality, behaviour because we build and make decisions about technology, but at the end of the day most people have 5-to-15 minutes to use your product during or between other work and conversations.
Investors will likely not be carefully analyzing your UI, unless they have a lot of time - most of their decision will be based on conversations with your top-level executive team and the information provided therein.
Star hires is a potential one - I can definitely imagine that a lot of very savvy designers and engineers might be put off by manipulative design decisions - but ultimately they may care more about the workplace environment that you claim as a company, the opportunity to be part of a growing business, etc.
I'm a touch on the pessimistic side with this one but these are my perceptions, partly based on experience and partly based on observing startup businesses evolve over time.
I am not sure if it is a dark pattern, but I hate it. Hidden tax/shipping costs. I have to go through the entire check out process, which is usually multiple screens, and requires a credit card to continue to find out how much shipping will be at the final confirmation screen. Is this done on purpose so they think people are already invested in the checkout, so they won't abandon it due to high shipping? Or notice shipping? I don't understand why not just give me an estimate based on fuzzy location before I start the checkout process, so I don't waste my time if the total cost is too high.
And yet, AirBnb was tricking people into using their service by proxying machine generated emails through fake female personalities to bootstrap their service.
I think the real trick is to dark pattern in a way that isn't offensive/egregiously negative to the customer.
I guess we need to make an distinction between short and long term conversion optimization.
How does a new and unexperienced customer at Ryanair feel when he sees the final amount he has to pay? It's obviously a good first conversion, but does it pay off a the second and third etc conversion for ryanair? Does he recommend the service?
He has other choices and the one that tricked him doesn't feel that good anymore...
Ergo: ryanair is optimizing short term conversion.
There a nice book on "evil design patterns" called Evil by Design [1]. It's interesting knowing how we are manipulated (and how we can manipulate others, not necessarily for bad reasons) through design.
Recently I find it annoying that the button I don't want to click is all bright, blue and defaulted and the button I eventually want to click looks gray as if it is actually disabled.
Cable providers have been the worst with this in my experience. No matter what you do it takes an ungodly amount of time to cancel service.
There was a great Behavioral Economics course on Coursera taught by Dan Ariely that touched on methods like these, as well as subtler ones. I think the slide on Organ Donation was from him. https://class.coursera.org/behavioralecon-001/class
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 :)
[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
Many of these could just as easily be the result of really bad UI design, especially when there are "technical constraints"—the RyanAir example in particular reeks of an opt-out being jammed haphazardly into an existing form to avoid adding another control.
Hanlon's Razor, yadda yadda. These patterns aren't any better if they're accidents, of course, but there'd at least be a chance that the offending company would fix them.
Oh, I don't doubt that it's sometimes—or even often—deliberate. But if a UI is implemented badly, no one complains (because no one ever does), and the number of purchases/signups/whatever goes up, why would anyone bother trying to "fix" it?
A possible example of this is how the 'Clear Browsing Data' button in chrome for android has been moved to an inconspicious location away from the other settings, if you have an android device i invite you to see how easily you can find it without looking it up.
Chrome is a web browser created (largely) by Google. Google makes their money (largely) from web advertising. Web advertising is far more effective if you can use things like cookies to decide what ads to show to people.
So the claim is that Google has an incentive to make it harder to clear local browsing data than if they just considered it from the perspective of what users would want.
Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better for them).
Bank withdrawals carry a risk of overdraft fees, have fewer consumer protections, and lack the rewards programs and other benefits of cards. But they cost less for PayPal. Merchants don't pay any less though -- it's how PayPal makes money.
Each and every time it defaults to bank withdrawals. You have to hit "Change" to select your card, every time. There's no way to change the default to your card. The only reason for this UI is to steer customers away from their best interests.