This is missing the crucial evil step of “buy out competition to monopolize the concept”
I honestly understand the way part of this cycle goes - but I always felt it could be prevented with easy “abandon to competitor” paths.
Like, Xbox tried this with Game Pass. People warned that it would just get more expensive, and y’know what? I ignored them. It was a valid option, because as soon as they did increase prices, I just stopped paying them and took my gaming elsewhere to indie games. People with this playbook choke when they realize they’re in an industry with real competition.
Of course, many other industries like social networks no longer have that safety net preventing the full enshittification cycle. That’s in part due to regulators handing over the whole hog for 5 cents worth of lobbying bribes, to the point we have MANDATORY OS-LEVEL DATA COLLECTION being openly pushed by legislators.
Ads? What ads? I see no ads whatsoever.
Yes, that includes on my phone. :)
Another panel: And we will hide an opt out of selling personal info and using their data to train our AI options. And if they have an ad blocker we will make the option completely disapear and blame their ad blocker for hiding it.
Same. “But that’s too hard!” is what I hear most.
Ive never heard that. People always just ignore when I ask or point it out, or agree they need to fix it.
This is amazon, google, etc. A change is needed
Ads and jacking up prices. Netflix anyone?
In all honesty, as soon as you start seeing the signs of step two, drop whatever service it is. If enough people actually practiced what they preached; talking with your wallet and for the model that just requires views or clicks did it, things would actually change.
100% straight out of Cory Doctorow’s book, Enshittification.
If he was saying in the last panel “I’m a victim of class warfare” the cartoon would be perfect.
What I dislike in this concept is the idea of corporations being good in the beginning. They never were. Most big tech services come from the very beginning with clear threats to many things if they rise to become a monopoly, but people turn a blind eye to it and dismiss anyone talking about. Then, years later, they get like “oh no, the corporations are becoming enshittified!”
Ah… YouTube
One of the platforms most protected from a user revolt no matter how shitty they get as there are no viable alternatives.
deleted by creator
be hated
They aren’t hated. They have billions of users (and tens of billions of bot accounts) all rattling around trying to run this same influence model from within the various platforms.
In so far as everyone complains about everything constantly, they are a source of perpetual complaints. But the idea that people can spend hours of their lives on YouTube and then claim “I hate this”… No you don’t. You obviously don’t hate it. You love it. You love your slop.
You’ve obviously never been an addict.
You can absolutely hate a thing you’re using and feel like quitting isn’t possible.
We could say that “hate” isn’t a complete accounting of the feelings in a complex situation, maybe.
You’ve obviously never been an addict.
Obviously.
You can absolutely hate a thing you’re using and feel like quitting isn’t possible.
I’ve been told I’m not an addict. I’ve been told social media is addictive. I’ve been told I’m on social media. I’m rattling around the contradictions.
Addicts can also love the thing and not feel like quitting, because the thing they’re addicted to gives them a feeling of empowerment or a release from anxiety.
Social media fulfills a craving for socializing that humans naturally desire. It offers to fulfill this natural desire through a low-cost, easy-access interface. And it feeds this craving continuously, often artificially through synthetic interactions with no real counterparty. And it does so with the goal of influencing the audience’s understanding of the world and consumption habits, two things humans also natively seek.
Talking about social media like an addiction misses the core drive towards its adoptions and proliferation. You might as well say you’re addicted to food and air as to say you’re addicted to text and video. These are sensory stimulations everyone is always pining for, whether or not a phone screen is the delivery mechanism.
The challenge people face isn’t the social media, it is the absence of non-social media as an alternative. We’re caged animals looking out the window and you’re complaining about “window addiction”.
I’ve been told I’m not an addict. I’ve been told social media is addictive. I’ve been told I’m on social media. I’m rattling around the contradictions.
There is no contradiction here: You can use something addictive without getting addicted. Ref. all the non-alcoholics that regularly consume alcohol, all the mountain climbers that aren’t adrenaline junkies, and all the foodies that aren’t obese sugar addicts.
Addicts can also love the thing and not feel like quitting (…)
Nobody said otherwise. What was said is that addicts can hate the thing they’re addicted to, and still be unable to quit. It’s the fact that you find yourself unable to quit even if you want to that indicates you’re addicted, not whether you actually want to quit.
You might as well say you’re addicted to food and air as to say you’re addicted to text and video.
False equivalence. Things necessary to sustain yourself are never referred to as addiction. Sure, you can be addicted to these things, but that implies you’re consuming them excessively (beyond what is needed for healthy sustenance).
But the idea that people can spend hours of their lives on YouTube and then claim “I hate this”… No you don’t. You obviously don’t hate it. You love it. You love your slop.
The whole point here is that there is no direct implication from using something and liking to use it, the reason being that addicts quite commonly dislike the thing they’re addicted to, yet continue using it.
