'Cory Doctorow Has a Plan To Wipe Away the Enshittification of Tech' (theregister.com) 206
In an interview with The Register, author and activist Cory Doctorow offers potential solutions to stop "enshittification," an age-old phenomenon that has become endemic in the tech industry. It's when a platform that was once highly regarded and user-friendly gradually deteriorates in quality, becoming less appealing and more monetized over time. Then, it dies. Here's an excerpt from the interview, conducted by The Register's Iain Thomson: [...] Doctorow explained that the reasons for enshittification are complex, and not necessarily directly malicious -- but a product of the current business environment and the state of regulation. He thinks the way to flush enshittification is enforcing effective competition. "We need to have prohibition and regulation that prohibits the capital markets from funding predatory pricing," he explained. "It's very hard to enter the market when people are selling things below cost. We need to prohibit predatory acquisitions. Look at Facebook: buying Instagram, and Mark Zuckerberg sending an email saying we're buying Instagram because people don't like Facebook and they're moving to Instagram, and we just don't want them to have anywhere else to go."
The frustrating part of this is that the laws needed to break up the big tech monopolies that allow enshittification, and encourage competition, are already on the books. Doctorow lamented those laws haven't been enforced. In the US, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Act, and the Sherman Act are all valid, but have either not been enforced or are being questioned in the courts. However, in the last few years that appears to be changing. Recent actions by increasingly muscular regulatory agencies like the FTC and FCC are starting to move against the big tech monopolies, as well as in other industry sectors. What's more, Doctorow pointed out, these are not just springing from the Democratic administration but are being actively supported by an increasing number of Republicans. He cited Lina Khan, appointed as chair of the FTC in part thanks to the support of Republican politicians seeking change (although the GOP now regularly criticizes her positions).
The sheer size of the largest tech companies certainly gives them an advantage in cases like these, Doctorow opined, noting that we've seen this in action more than 20 years ago. "Think back to the Napster era, and compare tech and entertainment. Entertainment was very concentrated into about seven big firms and they had total unity and message discipline," Doctorow recalled. "Tech was a couple of hundred firms, and they were much larger -- like an order of magnitude larger in aggregate than entertainment. But their messages were all over the place, and they were contradicting each other. And so they just lost, and they lost very badly." Doctorow discusses the detrimental effects of mega-companies on innovation and security, noting how growth strategies focused on raising costs and reducing value can lead to vulnerabilities and employee demoralization. "Remember when tech workers dreamed of working for a big company before striking out on their own to put that big company out of business? Then that dream shrank to working for a few years, quitting and doing a fake startup to get hired back by your old boss in the world's most inefficient way to get a raise," he told the Def Con crowd last August. "Next it shrank even further. You're working for a tech giant your whole life but you get free kombucha and massages. And now that dream is over and all that's left is work with a tech giant until they fire your ass -- like those 12,000 Googlers who got fired six months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years. We deserve better than this."
Additionally, Doctorow emphasizes the growing movement toward labor organizing in the tech industry, which could be a pivotal factor in reversing the trend of enshittification. "We're so much closer to tech unionization than we were just a few years ago. Yeah, it's still nascent, and yes, it's easy to double small numbers, but the strength is doubling very quickly and in a very heartening way," Doctorow told The Register. "We're really at a turning point. And some of it is coming from the kind of solidarity like you see with warehouse workers and tech workers."
Ultimately, Doctorow argues it should be possible to reintroduce a more competitive and innovative tech industry environment, where the interests of users, employees, and investors are better balanced.
The frustrating part of this is that the laws needed to break up the big tech monopolies that allow enshittification, and encourage competition, are already on the books. Doctorow lamented those laws haven't been enforced. In the US, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Act, and the Sherman Act are all valid, but have either not been enforced or are being questioned in the courts. However, in the last few years that appears to be changing. Recent actions by increasingly muscular regulatory agencies like the FTC and FCC are starting to move against the big tech monopolies, as well as in other industry sectors. What's more, Doctorow pointed out, these are not just springing from the Democratic administration but are being actively supported by an increasing number of Republicans. He cited Lina Khan, appointed as chair of the FTC in part thanks to the support of Republican politicians seeking change (although the GOP now regularly criticizes her positions).
The sheer size of the largest tech companies certainly gives them an advantage in cases like these, Doctorow opined, noting that we've seen this in action more than 20 years ago. "Think back to the Napster era, and compare tech and entertainment. Entertainment was very concentrated into about seven big firms and they had total unity and message discipline," Doctorow recalled. "Tech was a couple of hundred firms, and they were much larger -- like an order of magnitude larger in aggregate than entertainment. But their messages were all over the place, and they were contradicting each other. And so they just lost, and they lost very badly." Doctorow discusses the detrimental effects of mega-companies on innovation and security, noting how growth strategies focused on raising costs and reducing value can lead to vulnerabilities and employee demoralization. "Remember when tech workers dreamed of working for a big company before striking out on their own to put that big company out of business? Then that dream shrank to working for a few years, quitting and doing a fake startup to get hired back by your old boss in the world's most inefficient way to get a raise," he told the Def Con crowd last August. "Next it shrank even further. You're working for a tech giant your whole life but you get free kombucha and massages. And now that dream is over and all that's left is work with a tech giant until they fire your ass -- like those 12,000 Googlers who got fired six months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years. We deserve better than this."
Additionally, Doctorow emphasizes the growing movement toward labor organizing in the tech industry, which could be a pivotal factor in reversing the trend of enshittification. "We're so much closer to tech unionization than we were just a few years ago. Yeah, it's still nascent, and yes, it's easy to double small numbers, but the strength is doubling very quickly and in a very heartening way," Doctorow told The Register. "We're really at a turning point. And some of it is coming from the kind of solidarity like you see with warehouse workers and tech workers."
Ultimately, Doctorow argues it should be possible to reintroduce a more competitive and innovative tech industry environment, where the interests of users, employees, and investors are better balanced.
Step 1 (Score:4, Funny)
Step 1: Never again ask Cory Doctorow his opinion about anything.
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Never again ask Cory Doctorow his opinion about anything.
Feel free to inform the rest of us as to how he’s dead wrong, that tech is doing awesome, and how mass layoffs are fake news. I’ll get my popcorn.
Re: Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right, but he doesn't have a plan, so that part is wrong. He only has a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Those that created the enshitification of tech started out with a fantasy too. Then they turned that shit into reality by destroying the definition of monopoly. All it would take is enforcing anti-monopoly laws to bring mega-corp power and influence down considerably. That requires enforcement of current law. Not exactly a concept buried in fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
That requires enforcement of current law. Not exactly a concept buried in fantasy.
With these packed courts? Yes, yes it is.
Re: Step 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to continue our trend of uncomfortably agreeing with each other, but pivot a bit and say the Democratic/Republican "fight" over this is a sham. Neither party wants to give up having a handful of ultra-powerful oligarchs who control access to information and conversations for literally half the human race, they just want to be sure they're getting enough of that pie.
So Democrats and Republicans take turns whipping up a frenzy about the other side... but it's always in order to move towards greater centralization. There's a reason nobody's broken up the AWS monopoly, or the payment processor duopoly, or the Google/Facebook duopoly, but a less-rigged twitter has now suddenly magically become public enemy number 1.
It's the same reason every time someone starts a genuine competitor to one of those it's either bought out, crushed legislatively, or demonized to the point they can simply be locked out of society.
Re: Step 1 (Score:4)
The frustrating part of this is that the laws needed to break up the big tech monopolies that allow enshittification, and encourage competition, are already on the books.
Doctorow lamented those laws haven't been enforced. In the US, the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Act, and the Sherman Act are all valid, but have either not been enforced or are being questioned in the courts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The EU is doing what he suggests, but not on quite the scale he wants.
Take Apple as an example. Remember when you had to pay Apple to certify your peripheral to work with the iPod/iPhone? The EU forced them to adopt USB C, and now most generic USB devices work.
iMessage is going the same way. Apple is being forced by the EU to open it up to interoperability, removing a barrier to others entering the market. People who need iMessage to communicate with friends and family can now choose better phones that suit
Re: Step 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
People who need iMessage to communicate with friends and family...
The crux of the argument, in my view, is whether these people actually exist. Who truly needs iMessage to communicate? I can see how you might prefer to use iMessage, but I don't buy the arguments that it's so critical and irreplacable that it warrants regulation to open it up to non-Apple devices.
Re: (Score:2)
> how mass layoffs are fake news
Tech was doing better before mass hiring.
Hence, mass lay offs will fix Tech's massive "incompetent wave" problem.
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Feel free to inform the rest of us as to how he’s dead wrong, that tech is doing awesome, and how mass layoffs are fake news. I’ll get my popcorn.
>that tech is doing awesome Yeah, AI is fucking awesome
>and how mass layoffs are fake news Nobody owes you a living, also: Nobody needs diversity hires anymore.
Total reading comprehension fail. In your comment about AI, you're "arguing" against a point that agrees with your own. And about that "nobody owes you a living" comment - WTF? That's a total non-sequitur. Geekmux was simply pointing out that massive layoffs are a fact, and are a sign that tech isn't "doing awesome". What does that have to do with owing anybody a living?
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually having your job replaced by tech is a sign that tech is doing awesome -- it means that you could spend all day goofing off while just as much productivity is occurring. That our society is built upon the idea that therefore you should be fired and become homeless and your boss get another yacht is a social/political issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The last century has seen huge increases in efficiency of production, but the benefits go mostly to those at the top. That's what the free marketards are supporting, presumably without realizing it. Imagine if humanity got to share more equally in the fruits of progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if humanity got to share more equally in the fruits of progress.
Imagine the world being more like the lighter colored nations on this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! The last century has seen huge increases in efficiency of production, but the benefits go mostly to those at the top.
Assuming even moderate competition, the benefits only go to those at the top briefly. Then a competitor applies the same efficiency improvement and uses it to undercut the first company's pricing and gain market share, which prompts the first company to cut its prices as well, etc., etc. At the end of the day, the benefits go primarily to the consumer, which is why we have incredible machines for a fraction of what they cost years ago, and loads of freely-available services.
And for publicly-traded compan
Re: (Score:2)
Actually having your job replaced by tech is a sign that tech is doing awesome -- it means that you could spend all day goofing off while just as much productivity is occurring. That our society is built upon the idea that therefore you should be fired and become homeless and your boss get another yacht is a social/political issue.
Well that Disney version isn’t in the historical record when humans are involved. Our “society” is still infected with the Disease of Greed that says instead of rewarding humans with goofing off they’ll just be starved and/or warmongered from existence instead. Living humans cost money. Something that Greed N. Corruption has had a deadly answer for, for thousands of years now. Even the boss isn’t getting rewarded in a depression.
Re: Step 1 (Score:2)
"Next it shrank even further. You're working for a tech giant your whole life but you get free kombucha and massages. And now that dream is over and all that's left is work with a tech giant until they fire your ass â" like those 12,000 Googlers who got fired six months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years. We deserve better than this."
Re: Step 1 (Score:2)
Re: Step 1 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, AI is fucking awesome
AI is barely functional. It's hit:miss ratio is bad enough that asking the average janitor for his opinion on a subject that requires multiple PhDs to even know what the question is about is more sensible. And at least the janitor will tell you to "fuck off" if you try to deliberately and transparently goad him into giving a racist answer.
And yes, the layoffs are fake news. Can I have a show of hands? How many here have been laid off, and how many here who're dealing with personnel decisions are desperately
Re: (Score:2)
How many here have been laid off,
Not personally been laid off. My former employer had a big round of layoffs, followed by implementation of rank n' yank to keep laying people off without a layoff. I quit. Then they had more layoffs.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The only people I've been seeing getting sacked were HR and marketing.
If they start to get rid of management, they finally got rid of all the dead weight. That's not layoffs. That's just taking out the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope lots of engineers, but very few managers got laid off.
There were too many engineers for the management, but mostly because the structure was fucked. Between the byzantine performance and promotion process, the lack of any clear goals from leadership (necessitating endless meetings). The need for mentoring and "career growth", which I had to have nearly weekly meetings about except the career structure was fucked, but that left little room for people to actually do their jobs.
etc.,
Re: (Score:3)
If they start trying the "doing more with less" bullshit game with engineers, it's time to brush up the resume and bail.
When the brass starts to sink the ship by sheer dead weight, there's no sense in trying to pick up the slack.
Re: (Score:3)
I did quit.
But it was somehow more stupid that that. I get the management just patting themselves on the back, an paying themselves handsomely while the ship sinks. It's shitty, but at least it heaves to a certain kind of self-interested logic.
But it was kind of shitter than that somehow. More stupid an less well organised.
There was certainly a "do more with less" attitude, but that more seemed to stem from an utter lack of strategy. There was no solid strategy before layoffs. And that makes layoffs worse b
Re: (Score:3)
Been there, done that, didn't even get a t-shirt.
There's a limit to what you can do, though. Because at some point, you'll find out what a company found out I worked for. They fired like 25% of the people in a group and the rest went "I'm not gonna work 150% for the same salary, screw you" and another 25% quit. With the rest threatening to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
So where are all those talented people that must be available now? We are desperately trying to get some and can't find any.
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why I don't hire men any longer. They think they're entitled to the position because they're men.
Excellent! We'll be looking forward to the hardcore proof of your gender pay gap study. You should have no problems proving that since the women that work for you only have to be paid 77 cents on the dollar by comparison.
Investors should start lining up too. After all, you're able to destroy that greedy male competition on price alone due to your significant advantage with business costs.
Just a side note; humans require employment in order to sustain themselves, their health, their families, and a civil society. If you want to roll with the mentality that "nobody owes you a living", then you better be ready to accept that no one owes you a civil and polite society. There's a reason even capitalist societies have social programs.
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
How so ?? So far the current system works great for existing billionaires , but who else? what new massive tech companies have come into existence since Facebook, Google, Amazon etc ? Answer ZERO. They can squash all competition because congress refuses to enforce anti monopoly laws already on the books. I've been in the industry longer than you've been alive. What he says is, for the most part, true.
Re: (Score:3)
How so ?? So far the current system works great for existing billionaires , but who else? what new massive tech companies have come into existence since Facebook, Google, Amazon etc ? Answer ZERO. They can squash all competition because congress refuses to enforce anti monopoly laws already on the books. I've been in the industry longer than you've been alive. What he says is, for the most part, true.
Define 'massive' and 'new' in this context.
Google is newer than Amazon. Facebook is newer than Google. Neither were crushed in their infancy. None of them were crushed by older tech companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, IBM, Adobe or Intel. Intel did not crush infant competition and is now struggling against AMD, Nvidia, TSMC. Twitter, Instragram, Pinterest, Reddit, Youtube, TikTok and Snapchat all were founded after the mighty Facebook. Paypal didn't kill Stripe. None of them jumped on the wav
Re:Step 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Intel isn't struggling against AMD or Nvidia, they're still sitting at 70% market share. Facebook, Google, and Twitter were a collusive oligopoly. Google bought youtube, Facebook bought Instagram, TikTok is a freaking state actor.
You're trying to argue that casinos are fair by pointing at the people who temporarily beat the house.
Re: (Score:3)
Literally all the companies you named rose to fame in the last 20 years.
Kinda proving the opposite of what you were saying.
Amazon came out of nowhere and basically RKO'ed the king of mail order, Sears. Today Sears is gone and Amazon is a billion dollar giant that's diversified into online retail, streaming, and cloud hosting.
Re: Step 1 (Score:2)
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon didn't RKO anything. Sears committed suicide by refusing to get into e-commerce and deliberately sabotaging their own company from the inside with policies so idiotic and self-destructive you wouldn't believe they were real. Amazon walked into a complete vacuum and then jumped straight into monopolistic practices.
Re: BEAUHD NEEDS TO HAVE HIS GUTS BLOWN OUT (Score:2)
"Shiitake mushrooms are good."
Now you're in trouble again.
Re: (Score:2)
My boss just read the headline over my shoulder, and she asked me what would happen if a client walked by. She went back to her office, so I came back to type this.
What, no boss key? Perhaps you should consider using a smaller font, or not looking at /. while at work.
Or, does boss == spouse?
If boss is the spouse, then clients are the kids?
Re: (Score:2)
"We need to have prohibition and regulation that prohibits the capital markets from funding predatory pricing,"
This is a laudable and honorable goal. It is also doomed to failure, worse than doing nothing.
Human nature being what it is, and easily discerned, we cannot escape the reality that any profitable endeavor will attempt to maximize profit. Ti will do so by any means necessary, if it is true to its purpose, and will compete fairly or unfairly.
Cory's intention, to enforce fair competition, ignores the
Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions are a problem. No unions ends up being a worse problem.
Whoever has the most power will exploit their fellow humans with it. Unions tend to even the sides at the bargaining table.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those jobs could have stayed if people were willing to work for the wages paid in those countries. Unions didn't drive the jobs away, people wanting more than their productivity could provide did... and yes, that includes the unionized workers, but if they hadn't taken the money are you really suggesting the CEOs wouldn't have?
CEO pay has risen 1000% in the last 40 years. Workers got nothing compared to that.
Re: Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unions are why our manufacturing went to China, and our tech jobs went to India. Enough said."
Greed is why our manufacturing went to China, and our tech jobs went to India. Try facts, they help.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was just personal greed, it would be an easier problem to solve.
The bigger problem is the current definition of the purpose of business, to increase shareholder value
The corporation is a bit like a Terminator. You can't argue with it, you can't reason with it, and it will never stop working to increase shareholder value
The only solution is to change the definition
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the definition necessitates arguing against the current definition and reasoning with users of the current definition to use the new definition instead.
So either it's not like a Terminator, or there's no solution to the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you hadn't noticed, the USA no longer has a civilian ship building industry, because the Japanese and now the Koreans have out competed it.
Also Finland. A tiny left-wing country with high salaries, and yet they manage to build ships too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Submitting to economic reality is not just gre (Score:2)
Nothing stops the US doing the same
Well, nothing except "cost".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Submitting to economic reality is not just gre (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So where are the Indian software companies? They should still have an advantage because they don't have to pay fat upper management and executive salaries either...
So where are they?
Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that we're basically seeing on the world scale the same problem that the USA had in the early 20th century: Whenever workers in a given county, or state, looked to be on the verge of winning something, the robber barons would move to the next county or state over. It wasn't until we had national minimum wage and anti-child-labor etc laws that things really improved. What we're seeing now is basically that but on the nation-state scale: Oh, you're not allowed to pay American workers $2/hr? China will let us do that.
Unfortunately good luck on any sort of planetary minimum wage. All we can wait/hope for is for the people in poorer regions to go through the same process that the US did w.r.t. industrialization followed by unionization. It's looking that way, and on a way shorter timespan than the US took (which was an entire very long lifetime).
Re: (Score:2)
>"Our workers banded together to prevent themselves from being exploited, so the exploiters found new people to exploit" isn't exactly the winning anti-union argument one might think.
Damn. You said that so much more succinctly and vividly than I managed to when I replied. I'm going to try to remember that phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, manufacturing could have stayed here, if you're willing to work for 2 bucks an hour they could return right now!
Wanna sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to volunteer to work for no pay, without any health or safety protections, living at work in virtual prison conditions. I mean that's what you said right? Unions caused your quality of life to improve?
Manufacturing moved to China from a cost point of view. It is more expensive for a 1st world person to build something using the pay and expectation of safety they are accustomed to. The point you seem to be making is that unions have caused your quality of life to improve, and ... in a way you are r
We have laws. Enforce them. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why tech unionization is in the summary in an article about lack of competition.
Enforce the laws we already have to prevent anti-competitive buyouts and a lot of this would go away.
Founders and investors would go in knowing they'd have to succeed for real or lose their ass. They'd look at more long term business plans rather than short term grow grow grow grow dump it plans.
I can't even remember how many times I was on either side of an interview at a startup and the other person brought up "exit strategy".
Re: (Score:3)
LOL. The only person who would think that is the solution is someone who has not looked at how anti-trust law is built up in the USA. The laws are incredibly weak, built upon case law that has been often ruled in favour of companies even in the highest courts.
If you think the only problem is that laws aren't being enforced, you're not very smart... ironically.
Re:We have laws. Enforce them. (Score:4, Informative)
Look up the Sherman Antitrust Act on Wikipedia. It's poorly written and only 1 page long, that is the foundation for all of US antitrust law. Then follow the references in the wikipedia entry, you'll notice a long list of actual cases which set legal precedent ruled in the favour of corporations.
Northern Securities vs United States was positive for the government market and the application of law, but most others were not.
Standard Oil vs United States set a precedent to break up a company and achieved... nothing. The subsequent oil companies continued to fuck the market for decades to come. The effect of this is one of the reasons Microsoft Corp vs United states was ultimately ruled with a slap on the wrist.
Federal Baseball vs Major League caused the supreme court to rule that for anti-trust to be applicable you have to engaged in significant interstate trade, effectively setting the precedent that you are able to fuck over anyone within any given state.
I forgot which case set the precedent that you need to demonstrate harm, but that's a thing too in the USA and one of the reasons cases go in the direction of corporations (it was also a reason behind the courts overturning the block of Activision Microsoft merger, the inability of the government to demonstrate or model the actual harm).
Effectively nearly every antitrust case since the 1930s has been either ruled in favour of corporations, or been completely insignificant in its outcome or effect on the corporation or market.
You want meaningful change you need to pass a meaningful law, the existing law and settled case law is fundamentally weak, which is why it is rarely prosecuted. Prosecutors don't like wasting their own time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know why tech unionization is in the summary in an article about lack of competition.
The article isn't about lack of competition - it's about enshittification. It's right there in the title.
Lack of competition is a major cause of enshittification, and perhaps the biggest factor; hence the emphasis on competition. But lack of push-back power on the employee side is also a significant contributor to enshittification - that's why unionization is covered as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not just tech, lack of competition (and unwillingness to stop mergers that reduce competition) is a factor in many industries.
The massive Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger in the US is a perfect example of a merger that is absolutely anti-competitive and should not be allowed to go ahead but unlike tech, no-one who matters really wants to talk about how bad that merger is.
Or the talk about a possible merger between Paramount and Warner Bros, that absolutely should not be allowed to go ahead given how
FTC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He mentions her in the article and he also posted this on this twitter thread about it
Take Lina Khan, the brilliant head of the US Federal Trade Commission, who has done more in three years on antitrust than the combined efforts of all her predecessors over the past 40 years. [twitter.com]
It's more than just "predatory acquisitions" (Score:5, Informative)
Doctrow says as much in the article:
It's very hard to enter the market when people are selling things below cost.
That is exactly how a LOT of tech middleman companies got started - offer a service below cost, funded by VC money, with the assumption that profits from the service will go up with volume and customer lock-in. Uber, Lyft, all the food delivery services started out like that.
What happens is that consumers get subsidized initially, and get a false idea of the real cost of new services. When prices inevitably go up, that's seen as enshitification when it's more like the law of gravity - what goes down must eventually go up.
This will continue to happen even if we rein in predatory acquisition by big firms.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that literally the whole concept of government, you cant compete in a fair market, so the government provides "incentives" and "welfare"?
Maybe the government is just afraid, that its no longer in control, especially when anyone can download an AI smarter than every congresscritter.
Re: (Score:2)
My shoes are smarter than every congresscritter.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that literally the whole concept of government, you cant compete in a fair market, so the government provides "incentives" and "welfare"?
Where does that bullshit come from? Seriously, who said that?
Re:It's more than just "predatory acquisitions" (Score:5, Interesting)
That is exactly how a LOT of tech middleman companies got started - offer a service below cost, funded by VC money, with the assumption that profits from the service will go up with volume and customer lock-in. Uber, Lyft, all the food delivery services started out like that.
Yeah but his whole premise in the article is "maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that" which is valid. Your sentence here makes the upfront assumption that this business practice is good by it's outcomes when his argument is no, by the outcomes we just end up with mega corps and shitty over monetized services.
Like I believe Uber has never turned a profit or has only a handful of times, it just bleeds money to hold it's position and stave off competitors, maybe that's not a good thing.
Re:It's more than just "predatory acquisitions" (Score:4, Interesting)
I see social media and streaming as two different problems, streaming I think is much easier in that my "one simple fix" is to enforce exactly what you described with the theater chains. Mandate all content has to be available to license to anyone at a reasonable price, reasonable being you cover your costs for the license and make a lil' off the top, it's a license, it's "free" money but everyone can get it so "anybody" can open a streaming platform.
The inertial mass of social media though is much bigger big which explains why despite all the controversies Twitter/X is still the thing and Facebook still has 2B active users, all the people are still there and it's way harder to move off .
One policy way to fix that via competition I feel is to enforce some sort of foundational social media protocol, similar to Mastodon but that's a tall order more difficult, at least it feels that way to me. I think for social media just accept there will be few players and regulate according,
Re: (Score:2)
Mandate all content has to be available to license to anyone at a reasonable price, reasonable being you cover your costs for the license and make a lil' off the top, it's a license, it's "free" money but everyone can get it so "anybody" can open a streaming platform.
That is the problem right there. Your "reasonable price" is not another's reasonable price, nor should anyone be able to dictate what a person considers reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we use "reasonableness" as a legal standard in lot's of ways and in this case it's pretty easy as we aren't talking about a single persons opinion but an entire industry, an entire industry with a traceable history to compare against.
Again, reasonable in this case is very loose, cover your costs in terms of payout's to licensing and royalties and make a little for yourself on the top of that. What I would call unreasonable is pricing something so high that no one would be able to sell that content on
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly how a LOT of tech middleman companies got started - offer a service below cost, funded by VC money, with the assumption that profits from the service will go up with volume and customer lock-in. Uber, Lyft, all the food delivery services started out like that.
Most of them are still like that, many of them will never turn a profit. That said, I don't consider that bad, so long as I am not an investor. As a consumer if I can buy things below cost till the company tanks that is a net positive to me.
Re: (Score:2)
company that cannot/does-not produce net value ( profit ) is never a net positive to you.
Profit is not the only measure of value. Many specifically not-for-profit organizations deliver much value to society at large.
You gain nothing from the tanking company
If I gain services at less than they cost for as long as they last, that is indeed more than I gain from most tanking companies, which I agree is nothing.
Re:It's more than just "predatory acquisitions" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, though, VC money is hard to come by these days. First, VCs don't think that you have a market. People are fucking broke, they don't have money for some new vanity item you're offering, and offering a vital service is pretty much covered.
And then there's the second part: The companies that offer stuff below cost have deep pockets. Very, very deep pockets. We're talking billions that they can throw at destroying you. What VC would risk billions to muscle into a market where all he could do i
high school intellect (Score:2)
To Cory Doctorow, this represents an insight worthy of monetizing. How it has any relation to tech is baffling.
1. Observe unbridled capitalism
2. Coin a moronic term associated with it
3. Profit
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the George Carlin business model. Observe that the world has some horrible problems that are unlikely to be easily solved, and make money getting people to listen to you bitch about them while they nod their heads and go "he's right."
Re: (Score:2)
*nods* You're right.
First clue you've shitified something (Score:2)
Shitification
1. Embed ads into office software
Re:First clue you've shitified something (Score:4, Insightful)
First clue is the presence of an MBA anywhere but in the trash can.
Missing the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
It's when a platform that was once highly regarded and user-friendly gradually deteriorates in quality, becoming less appealing and more monetized over time. Then, it dies.
Yeah, that's the circle of life on the internet; it's supposed to work like that. The problem is the "dying" part doesn't always happen and then you've got "enshitified" businesses which plod along with their mediocre products/services until the heat death of the universe. If you've ever been inside a Walmart or dealt with a "too big to fail" bank, you'll immediately recognize this phenomenon isn't limited to tech companies.
Mr. somewhat successful sci-fi author hints at it but doesn't come straight out and say it: the problem simply endemic to capitalism. Once you've acquired enough money, its nearly impossible to fail completely even if most of your ventures turn into utter money-losing disasters. Disney is a great example - they can put out a series of bad films and a resort hotel experience which completely flops, burn a ton of money launching a streaming service, and it's all hardly a blip on their balance sheets because the profitable portions of their business empire are still raking it in.
If Doctorow thinks he can fix this situation, he's welcome to go into politics and give it the ol' college try. He wouldn't be the first, and he's certainly not the last.
There is no good alternative to capitalism (Score:2)
As any visitor to a country where there is only monopoly suppliers owned by the state will tell you, in the absence of competition the service is even worse, because the workers and management have no reason to fear losing their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the circle of life on the internet; it's supposed to work like that.
No, it isn't. It is enshittification, and it is not unavoidable.
There are websites and other services that didn't sell their user's eyeballs to advertisers, and then bled the advertisers dry until the users went elsewhere.
For example: E-mail is older than the internet, and it still works the same way it always has, despite numerous attempts to put postage stamps on them.
HTTP has the 402 Payment Required error code that was never used. At the time it was widely expected that paid services like WELL will be
Cory (Score:2)
Would we be hearing about Cory if Cory had nothing to sell?
He makes his books available free online (Score:2)
But hopes people will buy them.
He is not wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is capitalism with no scaling limits. Mega-corps (and the super-rich) do their part to promote enshittification and they really can do something else. So why are we tolerating them? They contribute massively less than a larger number of smaller companies formed from the same employees would. And the super-rich? They are just a problem, nothing else.
I think we need real limits on corporate sizes and wealth and on personal wealth. Without them, capitalism stops working.
Re: (Score:2)
They contribute massively less than a larger number of smaller companies formed from the same employees would.
How do you define contribution?
This is also demonstrably false when it comes to capital-intensive industries. Divide TSMC's 70,000 employees into 700, 100-person small businesses and see how they get on in their efforts stand up artisanal chip fabs. They'll contribute less both in terms of tax (they aren't going to make any money) and industrial output.
Oh, my (Score:2)
That's adorable.
This is capitalism. End of story. (Score:3)
Don't like what it produces change it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the plan
Re: (Score:3)
You know what is also capitalism? Not addressing safety concerns in food and cars since paying off victims of said is cheaper than actually making things safer.
I would rather have regulations that make things better for everyone than to allow unrestrained capitalism polluting and poisoning their way to profit for a few.
Heartily endorse this terminology. (Score:2)
Subscription-only software (Score:4, Interesting)
Legislation forbidding subscription-only applications would also be a good way to go.
If an operation wants to offer subscriptions, fine. As long as it also offers a reasonably priced, "one-time buy-and-its-yours" option.
I don't buy subscription-only software. Fortunately — at least thus far — there's nothing out there I couldn't either write or find a replacement for.
My computers last a long time. When I upgrade machines (which is usually because I'm enthralled with the newer tech, either hardware or software that depends on the newer OS, not because the older hardware has failed), I stick with the same OS, which in turn has been pretty good (though not perfect, which is probably impossible) about making sure that existing applications written to older versions of the OS continue to work.
The entire idea that application X requires continuous validation/payment or it'll quit working or worse, fail to read its data files, is anathema to me.
Yep (Score:3)
Ghu, what a load of non-techie losers posting in this thread.
Let's see, we're M$$$, people know and are familiar with this software... but sales are slowing, because most folks that want it bought it. I know, we'll add features less than 10% of them will ever need, and change the interface, and then we can sell them new copies as Improved!!!
Oh, and we'll add more eye candy, and who cares if that interferes with actually *using* the software, it Looks K3WL!
And that's what he's really talking about, and you morons are saying, no, no, here, big company, take our money.
Re:I like Doctorow's sci-fi fiction stories, but . (Score:5, Insightful)
You are arguing capitalism should control the consumer. Demanding regulation of market forces is not contradictory.
So you're for Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard, because that's what capitalism does?
Regulatory forces allowed that acquisition after MS promised no vendor lock-in and no enshittification (of current services) for 10 years.
Yes, Atari and Sega were happy to do that, back in the day: How do you think that ended?
Competition is not uniform, which is why we get de facto monopolies: The market is not able to pivot away from a product that lacks "continued improvements" or was enshittfied. For example, market share (one example, operating systems) means people do not seek competing products.
THAT is how a free marketplace works.
That's a circular argument: The marketplace works so competition happens, so the marketplace works. This is the 'invisible hand stops bad things' argument again.
You admit acquisitions "capture a significant number of customers" and then claim those customers will leave for a newer, less popular product that hasn't been enshittified. "Predatory acquisitions" reduce competition, thus skewing the marketplace: For example, loss pricing (mentioned in the article) means a start-up will not rise to provide consumer choice.
Other reasons for takeovers (Score:3)
1) International expansion - to enter a large foreign market it is often easier to buy an existing firm in the country and then make and sell your products benefiting from your technology. This was the pattern of the US buy outs of European car firms.
2) Buying a specific innovation that you will be able to develop and market far better than the present owner. This is applicable with BigPharma, where a small firm gets a drug designed, but doesn't have the resources to complete development and market it. By c
Re:I like Doctorow's sci-fi fiction stories, but . (Score:5, Insightful)
He believes competition will solve problems of platforms turning to garbage and dying off, yet he wants government regulation to restrict free market capitalism from taking place whenever it's believed a buyout is happening to reduce consumer choice?
Say what? "Free market capitalism" is what allows companies to buy other companies until monopolies and oligopolies are formed. And please don't tell me you're one of those people who imagine that unfettered, unregulated markets are the answer to monopolies and oligopolies when in fact they are the cause of them.
To be honest, I don't know any OTHER reason a merger or buyout EVER happens? Clearly, it's all about a given business gambling that the large up-front cost to merge with or acquire a competitor will pay off for them in the long run by letting them capture a significant number of customers who used to spend money with the business they're merging with or taking over.
Bingo! And that capture of "a significant number of customers" makes the company still harder to unseat from its dominant position, thereby allowing them to get away with enshittifying. How is it that you don't understand this?
There will always be some other social media platform happy to pick up where it left off. THAT is how a free marketplace works. Companies won't just sit back and watch Facebook do everything related to social media online, saying, "Darn.... It's impossible to ever offer consumers any more options. All the code someone could ever write has been written now."
Your regard for the magical "free marketplace" reminds me of the faith that Christians have in their God. And it seems just about as rational.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the history of communism is such a blindingly brilliant history of success! Every single communist government, ever, has produced nothing but paradise for its subjects!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the history of communism is such a blindingly brilliant history of success! Every single communist government, ever, has produced nothing but paradise for its subjects!
Spotted the dualist! Your argument rests on the flawed premise that there's absolutely no middle ground - only the extreme of total Communism, or the extreme of unfettered free-market Capitalism. Do you really believe that?
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism isn't heading into a much more preferable direction.
How about we learn that both forms of extreme market ideology are crap? Germany tried something called "social market economy" after WW2 and it led to one of the biggest economic explosions in history, they rebuilt from rubble to an international economic powerhouse in less than 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Failed capitalist regimes have a lower body count than failed communist regimes. By quite a lot.
But you knew that.
Re:I like Doctorow's sci-fi fiction stories, but . (Score:5, Interesting)
Now sit down for a real shocker: No place (that matters) practices either any more, hasn't for a long time. Pretty much everywhere sits somewhere on the regulated capitalism scale because that's what demonstrably works. You've got places that almost certainly ought to regulate more (India, China in practice), that could definitely stand to in some cases (USA), that could probably stand to regulate less (most of Europe). Most of the places that seriously need less are dictatorships in a split state in this matter (needing both a lot less and a lot more in different sectors).
Re: (Score:2)
Those people don't know what either unregulated capitalism or communism look like.
Re:Who the fuck is Cory Doctrow. (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of people that listen to Cory because he speaks to Gen X and younger people that participate in the information age the way that Bob Dylan spoke to the hippies, John F Kennedy spoke to the Boomers, and Hitler spoke to the Nazis. For those that subscribe to his view of reality he is an eloquent, intelligent, and respected writer and orator.