this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
19 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
60830 readers
3968 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Enshittification is a result of capitalism...in which venture capital plays a huge part. So...
Lol. Agreed. I feel like Cory picked a controversial title for attention, and then did an odd logic dance to get there.
But I found some of his other analysis in the post thought provoking, anyway.
For some context, Cory is on a quest to change hearts and minds about Intellectual Property law
Ooooh, I love that idea. That would be the perfect play, and the best part is that everyone (except for the people being exploitative shits) would benefit. Personally, I'd love it if Canada started jailbreaking cars, because then I'd be okay with getting an EV. I want a (used) BEV, but I don't want all of the spyware bullshit that new cars come with. I'd be overjoyed if I could spend $500-1000 to permanently enable all subscription features and rip out all of the data collection. I have never gone to a dealership for servicing (better to support independent local mechanics), so I wouldn't give a fuck about losing any sort of warranty. Bonus points if the jailbreak is FLOSS.
Here's to hoping some Canadian parliamentarian reads that article and agrees.
When you start with a conclusion and work your way back to reasons, you almost always end up with odd logic. That's why good science does it the other way around.
I would love a deep dive on the mechanisms of enshittification. Why make the user experience worse on a product you are trying people to keep using? Do they lose an amount of users like a resource to gain more favorable things for themselves with deals wich end up impacting the users negatively and they know it will?
It happens when there’s no meaningful competition, and when the friction of switching to a competing product is too high. Companies want to make more money with less. If you can get away with doing less without losing a significant amount of customers, then you will do it.
For example, the problem with switching social media is that you have to rebuild all your connections. They can make it worse, because customers aren’t willing to switch.
Another example is Windows. If you’re dependent on a program that only works on Windows it’s hard to make to jump to Linux.
Keeping it brief but drilling down a level deeper, enshittification results in an increase in short-term profits which is a positive for publicly traded companies who are legally obligated to increase profits or risk litigation by shareholders. The vast majority of consumers, once in an "ecosystem" of a product (social media is a great example here) will not leave the ecosystem due to the mild inconvenience of leaving. The profit lost by the very few who have the wherewithal to leave the ecosystem is made up for by those short term profit gains.
It's a cycle that continues on and on, sometimes saved by vast changes by the company to reel in those "lost" consumers. Or sometimes the company messes up so bad that they never return to their pre-enshittification days.
As long as companies have a duty to shareholders to increase profits at all costs, we will always see enshittification. This is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism.