• Zip2@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 minutes ago

    Am I the only one that really detests the word “enshittification”? It feels like someone couldn’t be bothered to look up the correct term and lots of other lazy people ran with it.

    Mind you, that feels like modern language in a nutshell.

      • Zip2@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 minutes ago

        Don’t ask me, my English is abysmal.

        Worsening, decline?

        Maybe there isn’t a single word.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Through no intervention or design, the market creates perverse incentives that only benefit a few. So the solution is to fiddle with the incentives?

    Ya ever notice that “market reform” schemes always seem like negotiations with an angry god? Sometimes I think that ancient civilizations would be much better understood if we stopped referring to the “priest class” and started calling them economists.

  • MagnumDovetails@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I like Doctorow, and these point are valid. I just don’t see the American government doing anything to benefit the people, regardless of left or right orientation. Most Americans want abortion access and reasonable restrictions on gun sales; I can’t imagine any candidates, local or federal doing little more than making empty promises on these subjects. Even Obama care is a hugely compromised husk of reasonable healthcare for all, and you still have republicans clamoring to dismantle it.

    I hate to be pessimistic, but I don’t think any American politician would take on this topic.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Another way to encourage interoperability is to use the government to hold out a carrot in addition to the stick. Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability. President Lincoln required standard tooling for bullets and rifles during the Civil War, so there’s a long history of requiring this already. If companies don’t want to play nice, they’ll lose out on some lucrative contracts, “but no one forces a tech company to do business with the federal government.”

    That’s actually a very interesting idea. This benefits the govt as much as anyone else too. It reduces switching costs for govt tech.

    • Benjaben@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Can confirm, I’ve worked for a company doing govt contract work and I really don’t know what it’d take for us to have walked away. They can dictate whatever terms they like and still expect to find plenty of companies happy to bid for contracts I think.

      • errer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s because they pay big dollars for comparatively little work with little validation of the quality of said work.

        • Benjaben@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That hasn’t been quite my experience. For one thing, they cap their pay and don’t (can’t) negotiate like a private client. So generally less money per given project.

          Comparatively little work and little validation also wasn’t my experience but I do get the sense it used to be more common, and it did feel like the experience I had was in some sense a reaction to previous contractors taking advantage.

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        It’s easy to think of tech as being companies that primarily produce electronics or operate information services, but that’s not the case. Every company uses (and often creates) technology in various forms that benefit from standards and interoperation.

        Connected devices benefit from standardized Wi-Fi. Cars benefit from standardized fuel- both in ICE (octane ratings, pumps) and electric (charging connectors, protocols). It even applies to companies that make simple molded plastic, because the molds can be created/used at many factories, including short-term contract manufacturing.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          54 minutes ago

          I don’t know what any of that has to do with what I said.

          Lots of things benefit from standards but corporations don’t, which is why they invent their own and don’t allow for interoperability.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.

        Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.

        • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah but donations can help make procurement tenders slightly in favour of donors. Or get inside scoop so they have time to be ready.

  • Chronographs@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    16 hours ago

    This is nice and all but any solution requires a government captured by capital to work against capital feels as likely to work as thoughts and prayers.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 minutes ago

      I’m inclined to agree. I think the best path through would be to focus on laws that benefit multiple minor players that have a seat at the table.

      Antitrust laws in general are a good example. These function at the direct expense of big monopolies, but are exactly what companies need if they want in on what was monopolized. And in the case of breaking a monopoly down, the resulting “baby” companies given more power, growth opportunity, hiring opportunities (job growth) and money making potential than the parent. This can also spur economic growth for all the fat cats out there by creating many new investment and hiring potentials. Overall, if you can get past the monopoly itself (read: take the ball away from your billionaire of choice), everyone else involved stands to benefit.

      There may be other strategies, but I can’t think of any right now. I think the key is to tip the scale in favor of more favorable outcomes, then repeat that a few more times, achieving incremental progress along the way. Doctorow outlines the ideal end state for all this, but it’s up to everyone else to figure out how to get there.

      While I don’t like the idea of embracing capital to improve things, the whole system is currently run this way. Standing with other monied interests that are aligned with the same goal might be the only way to go.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Better than completely allowing capital to do whatever it wants without even attempting to push back.

      • DJDarren@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        But what if some change in the right direction doesn’t fix everything immediately? Then what?

        May as well just not bother.

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        But then our first problem is the influence of capital, not a lack of ideas for what to do if that influence wasn’t there.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yup. All of these “solutions” that sound original are known. The reason we don’t apply them isn’t because we don’t know how to solve these issues, it’s because capital has pulled the handbrake. This is the problem we have to solve. All the other problems fall downstream and will magically start getting solved if we can release the handbrake. If we’re not talking about how to reduce regulatory capture, we’re not taking about real solutions.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Friendly reminder: Dotorow’s wife is a director of a Disney subsidiary highly likely to be involved with DRM.

    Ms Taylor is now the Director, StudioLab at The Walt Disney Studios. In that role she is responsible for ensuring that Disney continues to invest in the intersection between online tech and content distribution.

    EDIT: You all are reading way too far into me bringing this up. Didn’t say this to invalidate his point, mostly wanted to highlight something that I find most people don’t know about him. It’s something I think is important considering how much he styles himself as an idealogue/icon for technological freedom. He still makes good points, but the position he’s doing it from should be known is all.

    • tteok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I met Cory at a book signing and told him how much I loved Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom and he told her his wife works at Disney straight up.

      He’s an honest dude who has done more for how we think of the internet (and how it could be) than the majority of humans on this planet.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He still makes good points, but the position he’s doing it from should be known is all.

      I’ll remember that whenever George Conway or his wife talk about politics: apparently their diametrically-opposed views are somehow intertwined.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I don’t have a stake in this argument, as this is my first time learning about Doctorow. I just want to add that a good phrase to express the situation you described is “potential conflict of interest.”

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Is he, or has he ever been, a communist or associated with communists! We demand an answer!

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Lol, no. Also, big diff between associating with and being actively married to.

        Anyway I’ve edited my comment and I’ll repeat tye edit here: You all are reading way too far into me bringing this up. Didn’t say this to invalidate his point, mostly wanted to highlight something that I find most people don’t know about him. It’s something I think is important considering how much he styles himself as an idealogue/icon for technological freedom. He still makes good points, but the position he’s doing it from should be known is all.

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            … yes. I’m not an idiot, thank you for the implication otherwise though. That’s always nice.

            Perhaps you’re not familiar with just how outspoken Cory has been about all of this sort of stuff over the years. I think his wife’s job is an important disclosure that has not been made, so I highlighted it. Same as a youtuber disclosing a video was a sponsorship, it could impact how their words should be interpreted, but it just as easily might not effect things in any significant way.

            I’ve made my very minor point. I even specified in my initial comment that she is very likely involved with DRM, but not guaranteed to be.

            I’d love to hear any counterpoints besides the effective equivalent of “how dare you point out a potential problem with our guy”.

            Only you can decide how much or how little his wife’s job means. I just wanted people to be aware.

            • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              yes. I’m not an idiot, thank you for the implication otherwise though.

              I don’t get it. It’s like every point you appear to be making about Doctorov’s association with his wife’s employer is rendered invalid but you keep restating the seemingly-identical position.

              One more time, maybe? “Ha ha, just pointing out whom his wife is for no bearing on the value of his opinions but you know where his wife works, right?” is a weird point to NOT be making about his credibility.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Your minor point was to associate him with his wife as if they agreed. Hence my response. I have no idea about your intelligence level, just about your apparent misunderstanding of relationships.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s no longer Makielab, as it was acquied by Disney. What they actually do now ias a subsidiary is unclear beyond the quote from her Wikipedia page, especially as her personal site linked to by Wikipedia is down.

        I spent a good chunk of my teen years on 4chan, I’m normally the one pushing the idea that a good point is valid regardless of the source.

        Anyway, I edited my comment and I’ll copy that here: Didn’t say this to invalidate his point, mostly wanted to highlight something that I find most people don’t know about him. It’s something I think is important considering how much he styles himself as an idealogue/icon for technological freedom. He still makes good points, but the position he’s doing it from should be known is all.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          MakieLab still exists, even though it is now owned by Disney. YouTube still exists and has its own CEO despite being owned by Google. Skoda still exists and is its own entity despite being bought by VW.

          I don’t see how his wife being the CEO of a company that got bought by Disney counts as him making points from an unsavoury position.

          Firstly, people are not their spouses. Secondly, there’s no proof I’ve seen that this company goes against the things that Cory speaks of.

    • KNova@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Does that invalidate his point regarding enshittification?

      I think it might matter if Cory came out and said, I am starting an org with the resources to fix it. But I don’t see how this tidbit is relevant for a guy who coined the term about what’s happening here and has been beating the drum about the problem.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yeah this feels like a “no true Scot” fallacy to me, where anything he says should be invalid because of his wife’s position, which is false

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Only if you take it that way. I’ve said nothing about his point being questionable, and it wasn’t my intent.

          For me this is more about that his status as a free software/internet icon for well over a decade should be tempered, if only slightly, by knowledge of what pays his bills.

          • Benjaben@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            FWIW you’ve been level-headed throughout the thread and it does seem like a valid note to me. It’s not like, damning, as you’ve pointed out yourself, it doesn’t magically invalidate his work. But it does seem odd to me and I’m glad you pointed it out, and the response you’ve been getting seems weird and disproportionate.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Cory has self styled and been treated as a free software icon for well over a decade. The whole enshittification thing is just the latest thing to bring him back into the public eye.

        It doesn’t invalidate his point whatsoever, but it’s important to know that what pays his bills is all.