Evil Web & The Consent Trap

We’re told consent screens and delegation are designed to empower us. In reality, today's web is awash in manipulative consent patterns—bright "Accept" buttons, buried "Reject" links, opt-out forms longer than privacy policies, and a relentless push toward maximum data extraction, not real user choice. It's time to call this what it is: a system optimized to benefit everyone but the user.

Delegation and Consent: Intended Versus Actual Outcomes

On paper, delegation models like OAuth should give users meaningful, granular control: "Grant access for this purpose, to this app, for this time." In practice, product teams and growth hackers optimize for broad permissions, longer-lived tokens, and frictionless acceptance. Every extra permission is a goldmine for richer analytics, personalization, and new features—so why not ask for more?

Hence, we see scope inflation: requests for "read my folder metadata" morph into "read and write all my cloud files." Admin approvals at the enterprise level become blanket consents vulnerable to attacks like consent phishing, putting entire organizations at risk for years.

Dark Consent Patterns and Manufactured Agreement

Consent screens are built to maximize click-through, not comprehension. Regulatory bodies have repeatedly condemned dark patterns: color psychology, shaming, misleading layouts, and consent-or-pay schemes that force users to choose between privacy and access.

The grim reality:

Consent fatigue leads users to blindly accept terms.
Consent-or-pay models force users into making uncomfortable tradeoffs.
UI designs steer users toward "Yes" and make "No" nearly invisible.
Policies and permissions creep upward with little or no accountability.

The result? Consent becomes theater—an illusion of control, not the real thing.

Regulatory Shields and the Slow March to Change

Courts and regulators have started to penalize companies for these practices, but market incentives still encourage broad, sticky permissions. Regulatory action is belated—rarely proactive—and fines alone cannot restore user trust. Even after intervention, companies often find new ways to manufacture consent and reclaim maximal access.

Trust Erosion: The User’s Perspective

The end-user isn’t fooled. Overly broad permission requests, confusing cookie banners, and IT-sanctioned risky apps erode faith in digital systems. Once trust is lost, future protocols—including genuinely user-centric solutions—inherit deep suspicion and reluctance.

How SSI and DIDs Can Fix Consent—and Fix Trust

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) and decentralized identifiers (DIDs) offer a path out of consent manipulation and trust erosion:

User-Centric Control: DIDs put users at the center. Users own their identifiers, credentials, and data stores—they choose what to share, when, and with whom.
Verifiable Credentials and Selective Disclosure: SSI systems allow granular, purpose-bound, timestamped credentials for specific actions. You can share only the information needed, for only the time required—no more blanket approvals.
Transparent Revocation and Change Logs: Credentials are easy to revoke, with transparency around who requested what and when. Change logs and trust reports become core features, not rare exceptions.
Privacy By Default: Data remains local, disclosed by explicit action—not stored in centralized silos or shared with hidden third parties.

With SSI, delegation protocols are truly about least privilege: precise permissions, limited timeframes, symmetric choices, and full accountability through transparent logs. The power balance shifts back to users—not companies, not attackers, not overwhelmed IT admins.

What Good Looks Like: Consent Through SSI

A consent flow built on SSI might look like:

You receive a credential request with a clear purpose and expiry.
Rejecting or accepting is equally easy, and fully auditable.
Your wallet only shares the minimum required attribute, validated cryptographically.
You can revoke access or update your consent at any time—and see when, where, and why it was used.
Enterprises conduct meaningful reviews before broad delegation—not just single-click approval.
All parties publish transparent 'trust reports', putting user interests front and center.

The True Beneficiaries—And the Path Forward

With today's legacy consent, companies and attackers gain most. With SSI, the user becomes the actual beneficiary: empowered, informed, private.

Consent isn't supposed to be a conversion funnel; it's supposed to be a trust-building cornerstone. By re-centering delegation and consent around users using DIDs and SSI, digital identity can finally live up to its promise—making every "yes" mean something real.

Trust—not click-through—should be the metric. SSI enables it. The question is, will the industry follow?