Doctorow's definition of "enshittification" has always rubbed me the wrong way. Platforms oscillate between good and bad for all sorts of reasons, and the best platforms (imo) live and die on the culture of their userbase. There have been
truly godawful social media systems out there, like Nintendo's Miiverse or the old Dark Souls message system (or even HN, in a way). They're still immensely fun to use, though - mostly because of the culture of their userbase. You could argue they might leave if their surpluses are directed back to the shareholders, but many of these platforms don't need much surplus to exist in the first place. The $40 billion Twitter valuation is a joke, it's undeniable that there is some form of imposed value outside of what the company is actually worth. In other words, the enshittification of TikTok correlates directly with the enshittification of it's userbase. Same goes for all of these other lowest-common-denominator platforms.
Plus, his examples seem to contradict his thesis:
- Mobile app stores have always been controlled by their vendors, there is no illusion of non-shittification there
- Steam has no real shareholders, and exploits suppliers to cater to users and and themselves
- Facebook has a half-dozen different platforms that have all arguably launched in pre-shittified states
- Twitter lives a constant repeating lifecycle of enshittification and resurrection, mostly because most people can't be bothered to find an alternative
It all feels like trying to unify these concepts under one formal thesis of shit is a bad idea. Our expectations of the internet are constantly changing, and our cultural landscape is shifting to realize that we've had a pretty raw deal for the past decade. Now we want to lash out at the platform-holders, when deep-down we know that we're partially to blame.
I just wish Doctorow didn't use this idea to peddle the idea of helplessness to Twitter/Tumblr/Whatever users. There are alternatives, TikTok should not be the be-all-end-all of internet interaction anyways.
Plus, his examples seem to contradict his thesis:
- Mobile app stores have always been controlled by their vendors, there is no illusion of non-shittification there
- Steam has no real shareholders, and exploits suppliers to cater to users and and themselves
- Facebook has a half-dozen different platforms that have all arguably launched in pre-shittified states
- Twitter lives a constant repeating lifecycle of enshittification and resurrection, mostly because most people can't be bothered to find an alternative
It all feels like trying to unify these concepts under one formal thesis of shit is a bad idea. Our expectations of the internet are constantly changing, and our cultural landscape is shifting to realize that we've had a pretty raw deal for the past decade. Now we want to lash out at the platform-holders, when deep-down we know that we're partially to blame.
I just wish Doctorow didn't use this idea to peddle the idea of helplessness to Twitter/Tumblr/Whatever users. There are alternatives, TikTok should not be the be-all-end-all of internet interaction anyways.