Bad take. Relying on the levers of free market capital to regulate free market capital has never worked because of the perverse incentives created by free market capital.
Sure, we can blame capitalism, which is a useless activity. In fact, it’s a harmful stance because blaming capitalism artificially puts solutions out of reach.
What are the arguments to back these 2 sentences?
Climate action. Meat eating car drivers don’t blame themselves. They blame ExxonMobile, which effectively offloads the meat-eating car driver from taking responsibility for their own contribution to the problem. Enshitification of the digital space has the same blame-failure as enshitification of the planet.
Each of these options depends entirely on what you need as an individual. Do you need to solve a Captcha so you can use a specific website? Maybe, maybe not. Some of those choices may be optional, some may be essential, some may be essential to taking your life down a specific path that's important to you.
It's the same as the argument for switching to Linux. Can a lot of people switch to Linux and continue to do what they need to do with their computers? Absolutely. Can everyone? No. But they can use a service like 0patch to keep getting security updates to older versions of Windows after their EOL. Is Libreoffice going to be a good solution for people who need a note-taking app that auto-syncs to cloud storage without having to manually save or wait between timed saves and who need the same text available across multiple devices? Probably not, but there are alternatives to google docs that might work. There isn't always going to be a better option, and sometimes the most anti-corporate option isn't going to be the best option, but some shift where possible is better than no shift anywhere.
Prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't actually fit isn't an answer to the problem any more than being annoyed at whatever corporation that's enshittifying their product.
And while we're here, a brief word about the broadening of the term enshittification. I've seen a lot of people insisting that enshittification only be used to apply to social media or to web services or digital products, but that really doesn't capture its full potential. If people are using the term enshittification to refer to their favorite body wash swapping to cheap ingredients after they do an IPO, or to the phenomenon of new washing machines breaking down inside a year when their parents still have one from the 80s that works great, that's not a bad thing. The sanctity of the word retaining its original application isn't important (and isn't how language works), it's the awareness that the word brings that's important. If people are realizing that the companies they help bring to prominence are developing a habit of raking back value as soon as they have the opportunity, that's something we should want to see.
Each of these options depends entirely on what you need as an individual.
“Need” is a very slippery word here. Countless conveniences are described as a “need” by addicts of convenience. You might say you /need/ to fill the CAPTCHA required by the unemployment office, when in fact you think you “need” to not spend the time it takes to do a paper application. Tim Wu’s Tyranny of Convenience essay gives a good perspective on this. We don’t need the conveniences that we think we need.
That’s not to say real needs don’t manifest, but people’s ability to make the distinction is dodgy for sure. Luckily one person solving a CAPTCHA unavoidably for a true need is not going to be a significant enabler in the grand scheme of things if people generally refuse such garbage.
Can everyone? No.
Boycotts, for example, do not require everyone to participate. There is a critical mass by which if the threshold of rebels mounts, it will cause change that even benefits the pushovers. In a lot of situations, we would only need 10% or so of users to have a constitution and to honor it.
Prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn’t actually fit
Boycotts need not suit everyone. We just need a notable number of consumers with willpower and discipline to turn things around.
Yes the enshitiffiers are bad, but we are the ones who enable them.
Walmart doesnt put small shops out of buisness, we do when we shop at wallmart! Its quite obvious its our fault, because if we didnt shop at wallmart, it would be the one going out of buisness....
If youre not using linux right now, youre telling microsoft and apple that youre OK with them enshittifing everything. We need to do more than complain to fix the world.
I don't buy anything at Walmart and I probably only been in one less than 5 times.
Walmart specifically chose areas where people needed values, people barely getting by financially, and don't have a lot of time and energy.
I get the point of this post but putting the blame on consumers is exactly the public relations speak used by these corporations.
Stop blaming the victims of unfetterwd capitalism. The current state of affairs began with Reagan and Thatcher (and their billionaire backers) that sold the world the idea of trickle-down economics.
You say that from a Cloudflare node, @[email protected]. The “victim blame” card is obviously a silly failure here, as is your analogy. You may be forced to toil for shit wages under Reaganomics because if you don’t, you suffer more. But this is not true of CAPTCHAs. Stop pretending you must solve a CAPTCHA, when in fact you’re just too lazy to not play the victim and send your correspondence by snail mail instead of webmail. You choose to be a victim when you choose to interact with enshitified resources, so you’ll get no respect from me. I respect those who have the constitution to walk away from it, not feed the oppressor.
So we could sit around pointing fingers or we could be the change we want to see in the world
So you're saying that unhoused, impoverished unemployed people have the social capital to change the world?
C'mon buddy. Not everyone is capable of changing anything ... especially when poverty rates and unemployment are spiking.
Ass-u-me things like that based on your personal experience is naive at best.
So you’re saying that unhoused, impoverished unemployed people have the social capital to change the world?
This analogy you continue to use is broken. Give it up.
You might have to toil for shit wages, but you don’t have to solve every CAPTCHA puzzle that arrives on your screen.
Well hopefully doing nothing about it works out for ya
Here's the thing: protesting enshittification takes expertise, time, and energy. I've been working on degoogling and such, and it's honestly difficult. Installing Linux is easier now than it used to be, but it's still a learning curve for the average person.
We function as a society by relying on each others' expertise. For example, it's impractical to expect everyone to understand the intricacies of medicine, law, and engineering--so we entrust others in areas we don't fully understand.
In addition, we can create regulations that benefit and protect the average person, who likely doesn't even understand the potential dangers and pitfalls. Ideally, regulations like this are instigated or heavily influenced by the domain experts, as they have a much better understanding of what would be beneficial for everyone.
The problem isn't that everyone isn't an expert in everything, the problem is that regulation part is broken. Instead of creating laws that benefit people, we create laws that benefit a select few at the expense of the working class.
Enshittification is our fault, but not for the reason you suggest. It's our fault because we've fallen into personality cults and elected people to lead who don't have our best interests at heart. As another commenter mentioned, Reagan and Thatcher are two of the most egregious examples in recent history--people who should never have even been considered for the roles they took. Trump is just another in a long line of these.
Because even though I'm not an expert in most areas, everyone has a responsibility to think critically about who runs for office and who they vote for. I don't expect everyone to be an expert on politics (we're all susceptible to manipulation on these things, after all), but it doesn't take an advanced degree to identify an insincere politician. Just ask the millions of Americans who voted to relieve themselves of healthcare (the face-eating leopards have been very busy lately).
the problem is that regulation part is broken. … Enshittification is our fault, but not for the reason you suggest.
(emphasis mine)
The problem is not singular. It starts with consumers failing to do their job. It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that enablers are not at fault because there are other faults in the system. The enablers are at fault, of course for serving as enablers (as I suggest). Voters (be they enablers as consumers or not) are also at fault. I stress also, because you can be at fault for serving as an enabler who (e.g.) solves CAPTCHAs, while simultaneously voting poorly. But it must be said, voting in general exections is an extremely blunt instrument. It is very close to blaming an inanimate object.
Even if voting were perfectly effective, it’s bizarre to think that electing opponents of Thatcher, Reagan, and Trump would in the slightest make a difference. In fact democrats in the US (Obama in particular) get most of their corporate support from the tech industry, likely because they would be a threat in the absence of that bribery.
Enshitification is not even on the radar of politicians. They wouldn’t give one sentence to it. This is in fact for the reason I suggest: consumers have taken the side of enablers. You can see it just in the votes of this thread.
Politicians look at metrics.
My energy supplier sent me a notice telling me to submit my meter reading digitally. There is a CAPTCHA blocking me from doing so. If everyone solves the CAPTCHA, the politicians don’t even know there is a problem. People who are too lazy to submit their meter reading the old fashioned way are sure as hell too lazy to write a complaint. But if 3% of the consumers were to refuse the CAPTCHA and perhaps complain to either the supplier or the suppliers regulator, that would create a metric that politicians see. I do my part to ensure my protest appears in a metric that is seen by a politician. This happens in parallel to refusing the CAPTCHA.
Solving the CAPTCHA send the opposite signal: that the mechanism works.
Here’s the thing: protesting enshittification takes expertise, time, and energy. I’ve been working on degoogling and such, and it’s honestly difficult. Installing Linux is easier now than it used to be, but it’s still a learning curve for the average person.
You do not have to be an expert to oppose CAPTCHAs. Every form of enshitification has varying degrees of detection due to varying degrees of expertise. With knowledge comes responsibilty. To the extent that you can recognise the enshitification and avoid it, you have a social responsibility for doing so. It doesn’t work to say your neighbor is not tech literate enough to recognize dark pattern Y, so you are somehow absolved of your duty. It’s another matter entirely to talk about duty to be informed, which is of course debatable.
In addition, we can create regulations that benefit and protect the average person,
The GDPR has been a shit-show. It does cover many shenanigans with cookies and dark patterns (which are covered as well as possible in the European Data Protection Board’s guidelines 03/2022). But until you read how this unfolds into codified law, you are far to confident and reliant on the legal approach. Just as we see climate action being a disaster for the same reasons.
How would you codify a law against CAPTCHAs? The govs themselves use them. You cannot search the business registration databases of many US state secretaries because of a CAPTCHA. Precisely codifying circumstances to prohibit without excessive nannying but at the same time without being useless is a great feat in itself, and also an enforcement nightmare.
I am up to my neck in GDPR violations, many of which are quite blunt and simple to prove, yet not a single report I’ve submitted leads to enforcement.
Hope that regulation will solve enshitification is rediculous in the face of more important policies like Article 17 of the GDPR goes without enforcement. It’s not THE answer -- not in the slightest. By all means, write to lawmakers and ask for anti-enshitification law, for all it’s worth, but it would be the least effective option on the table. Boycotts are more under your control and can be more effective. And boycotts lead to metrics that politicians see.
"If all those stupid other people would do as I do the world would be a better place": great way to make oneself feel good for being the best person on earth while everybody else is shit.
I know some of the things happening out there because people don't seem to care are absolutely heart wrenching. But yelling at others "If only you would change!" doesn't help - especially calling them names like "spineless pushovers" is only going to make matters worse. Instead try to understand where they come from and take them by the hand to somewhere more wholesome.
It doesn’t help to conceal the fact that there actually are people who do not lick boots.
Instead try to understand where they come from
I know where they come from. They come from addiction to convenience. They come from a place where they’ve not read Tim Wu’s “Tyranny of Convenience” essay, as they are surrounded with others who just roll with the garbage. They don’t know the fighting opposition exists because there are so few of us. It’s first and foremost important for them to know there are those who do not solve CAPTCHAs, and click through cookie walls, etc. We exist -- that’s the most important msg to take away from this.
You exist, and you are convinced that whatever you are doing to make the world a better place has to be the status quo, and everyone doing less than that or doing something different is a bad person. And on top of that you insist in being insufferable about it. Do you believe this approach is going to change anything? Or is making yourself feel superior so much more important than actually approaching others and work together, even in an imperfect way?
It’s like voting in elections. I cast my drop-in-the-ocean vote to do my part, which on its own has negligible power but it gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I am not part of the problem. It gives peace of mind and a kind of freedom amid the various prisons around us.
Do you believe this approach is going to change anything?
Non-voter shaming is indeed a strategy used in US elections. If it did not have effect, they would not spend money on it.
This gives me an idea. The equivalent of bumper stickers for our fedi traffic. An icon or something at the bottom of my posts signaling that I don’t solve CAPTCHAs, or use clearnet, or email MS/Google recipients, etc. It would have to be a tiny 1-liner that’s not severely cluttered or noisy, but /something/ like the blue ribbon campaign decades ago. Maybe avatar is a good place for that, to keep things tidy.
Welcome to Enshittification
A community for everyone who misspelt it as enshitification.
"I the onceler felt sad as I watched them all go, but business is business and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies you know."
This is your space to document the decay, demise, and destruction of the tech world as we know it. Share stories, articles, and firsthand experiences that capture the ongoing decline of once-celebrated platforms, services, and companies in the late stage capitalist landscape.
From monopolistic corporate shifts to anti-user updates and the relentless pursuit of profit over quality—if it’s broken, bloated, or just plain bad, it belongs here. We’re here to spotlight the moves that make the tech world worse, one piece of enshittification at a time.
Guidelines
🔹 Stay on Topic: Only post content about the decline of tech products, platforms, or companies.
🔹 Quality Content: Give some context when posting links or articles to drive quality discussions.
🔹 Respectful Discussion: Critique companies, crappy tech, and capital, not community members.
🔹 Positive Monday: The first Monday of every month is reserved for positive content only that shows enshittification isn't inevitable.
Join us to expose the changes that ruin the things we once loved and to discuss what comes next in a tech world gone wrong.