Each of the provided examples leverage the fact that we make very quick, snap judgements to form our first (and often only) impression. Adding superfluous detail to the chart causes the casual observer to focus on information that isn't actually relevant to the underlying data.
One thing I found really confusing, though, was that they changed the colors in some of the examples. I had to check the legend of the second example, because I'd thought the order had changed. And double check because the labels of the legends are listed in a different order than what is displayed on the chart itself.
While it is supposed to be an example of confusing charts, I think the author might have conveyed their message more clearly by focusing on one "trick" at a time.
I hate charts. There is no standard way to present data so you have to learn and think about how to process the data you see. Whereas a simple column of numbers in percentages or whatever is almost instant to process as it requires no more than understanding that 55% is more than 45% for example.
Another good one is comparing an absolute number to a relative one. For example this chart[1] shows the total population vs. percentage breakdown and insinuates the lines should have similar slopes on both (disclaimer: I'm judging the presentation and not the message).
Quartz (qz.com) is a prime offender of the last one. They have little "chart of the day"s, and every time the scale is fit so that the graph minimum is at the bottom of the scale, and the max at the top for maximum variation.
Imagine the different colors as different browsers. At 2004 maybe blue/IE is big and through the years you'll see it grow or shrink with it's usage. I think it has the additional benefit of showing that when one takes more, the others naturally get less.
It's a reasonable choice if you want to show market share at the same time as market growth. Considering the example of browser statistics, you could imagine a graph showing the total height growing considerably over the years while the height of some browsers remains static (or even shrinks).
If the overall height grows and some browsers remain static, that means the other browsers likely didn't "steal" any of its market share, they were just better at attracting new users.
https://hbr.org/2014/12/vision-statement-how-to-lie-with-cha...
http://data.heapanalytics.com/how-to-lie-with-data-visualiza...
There's an amazing version I read about two years back I wish I could find too :(