this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
1136 points (99.5% liked)

World News

54784 readers
2931 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The video’s opening shot shows a man hiding under a bed snipping in a hole in someone’s sock. Seconds later, the same man uses a saw to shorten a table leg so that it wobbles during breakfast. “My job is to make things shitty,” the man explains. “The official title is enshittificator. What I do is I take things that are perfectly fine and I make them worse.”

The video, released recently by the Norwegian Consumer Council, is an absurdist take on a serious issue; it is part of a wider, global campaign aimed at fighting back against the “enshittification”, or gradual deterioration, of digital products and services.

“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,” said Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, the council’s director of digital policy. “But this is happening every day in our digital products and services, and we really think it doesn’t need to be that way.”

Coined by author Cory Doctorow, the term enshittification refers to the deliberate degradation of a service or product, particularly in the digital sphere. Examples abound, from social media feeds that have gradually become littered with adverts and scams to software updates that leave phones lagging and chatbots that supplant customer service agents.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 36 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

As they say. The cloud is someone else's computer.

Emphasis on someone else

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago

A few days ago I tried to find the best frame of the video to turn into a meme. This is what I came up with.

[–] urshilikai@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (4 children)

Not sure I agree with the statement that we wouldnt accept enshittification in our analog lives... ovens and refrigerators with screens and becoming unrepairable, cars are only sold with onboard computers and power windows with no other price point, materials for most household items becoming plastic / single use / or deliberately designed with a failure lifetime. I recently started buying clothing with no synthetics and they are unfathomably better performing in terms of breathing, odor, comfort and warmth. We've forgotten what physical products used to be like, in 20 years we will have similarly forgotten what un-enshittified internet / tech was like.

I think, and perhaps it's scarier than anyone wants to admit, we've already gotten accustomed to or given up fighting against enshittification of the analog world.

The common thread is capital and financialization, and there can be never be progress until the ideas in "how to win friends and influence people" are called out as demonic and unhuman.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago

The fact that half of eligble voters in the US willingly voted for the ultimate enshittifier not once, but twice, is a testament to this.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

I've also started buying natural fibers only. Noticable improvements in quality of life

[–] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely - enshittification isn't just an internet phenomenon, but literally everything has been getting worse because oligarchs are squeezing more money out of us.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago

I think the point was if it was a person physically doing it to you, you wouldn't just sit there watching them do it.

[–] sidelove@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you said, but why you gotta do power windows dirty like that 😭

[–] SpraynardKruger@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago

I don't think they were shitting on power windows, but rather the lack of option for a lower priced model without them. It wasn't too long ago that there were economy models without power windows available for certain cars.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Funny, just today I found out my subscription to addy.io, the email alias company, was somehow deactivated, and I reactivated it today. Unfortunately, any emails or email metadata sent to deactivated aliases are not kept on their servers, which is fantastic for privacy, but then I start thinking, "what if these were important emails I couldn't get because my subscription was fucked with?", or "what happens if the email alias service goes down and I can't get any emails I was expecting?”. Now I'm at a crossroads as to whether or not I should continue primarily using my aliases for my emails, or just provide my true email for important services and leave potential spam/junk to the aliases.

Sidenote, the reason I wanted to use my aliases as my primary email contact was because of breaches I discovered via Have I Been Pwned. I think I did go a bit too far in the opposite direction, so now I need to find that middle ground. Definitely gonna make some changes over the next few days with my email addresses on my accounts.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 25 minutes ago

or "what happens if the email alias service goes down and I can't get any emails I was expecting?”

mail servers are generally supposed to try for a few days when delivery fails

[–] chasteinsect@programming.dev 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly why I only use email aliases for newsletters and stuff

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I have one primary email and one that goes to a «not important» folder that I check irregularly.

Seems a good middleground, don’t have to create a new alias for each service

[–] chasteinsect@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Hmm maybe i'll do something similar. I was thinking recently of using a new alias when doing purchases online but haven't decided yet. Kinda don't want to over-complicate things you know?

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Works for me. Mail there gets auto «read» too so I don’t have notifications or indicators of new mail :p

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 6 points 14 hours ago

You can use a custom domain in many cases, which you control (not sure about addy.io though). Still has the dependency on the service, but you can at least quickly transfer if it goes to shit.

[–] jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 14 points 19 hours ago

For me important stuff gets the real email address and the secondary/beyond gets the aliases

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 124 points 1 day ago (12 children)

For me it’s a tale about loss of ownership in a dematerialised world. No one is going to cut a piece of my dining table because I own it and physically have it entirely at my side.

I’ll never own (my locally installed) Spotify nor the songs I listen to. Though for the later I have vinyl alternatives which no one is touching.

[–] khendron@piefed.ca 18 points 22 hours ago

In his Enshittification book, Cory referred to this as "technofeudalism" —essentially the return to the feudal society where there are owner elites and peasant subjects. The owners control everything, and the peasant have to rent access under the terms and conditions set by the owners. In the technofeudalism model, everybody (the peasants) have to subscribe to access anything from the corporations (the owner elites), with the corporations retaining all the power.

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago (6 children)

If you want a specific variety of a plant that's patented by, say, Monsanto, you don't own the seeds you get but rather their permission to plant them.

If you re-plant seeds in your own field produced by the crops of the previous year on that same field they can sue you and they will win (see Bowman v. Monsanto Co.)

[–] grandma@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago

This is why I only seed torrents

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 42 points 1 day ago

They'll also sue your neighbour if your plants spread seeds to their land.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

That's cool. Good thing I have a black light, and can modify the seeds the same way they do. Therefore, not the same seeds.

Edit: didn't make this clear enough, the idea is to lightly modify their seeds just enough to make it legal. If they want to be shitty, we can be shitty right back. Any rule they make for us they make exceptions for the rich. Therefore, with enough cleverness and a stubborn refusal to accept others bullshit(and a bit of spite) you can exploit their rules and bend them to your will.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 50 minutes ago

Or they can just unfairly fuck you over even though it's hypocritical and illegal and makes no sense

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can have digital no problem. I have 25 year old mp3s. It just needs to be physically on your drives. You can pirate or purchase music today without issues. Spotify just scratched that laziness itch at one point in time and now you are locked in.

[–] caurvo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

For anyone who is interested in returning to simple mp3 players, check out the Snowsky range by Fiio.

The Echo Mini and soon to be released Echo Nano are pretty great little pieces that inhabit the offline music (and not your phone) space.

Edit - and Bandcamp or Soulseek to fill the drives up :)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/T4Upf_B9RLQ

Here's the video, it's funny cause it's infuriatingly true.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 4 points 20 hours ago
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (6 children)

As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue. It is a race to the bottom.
How do you fix that without massive upheaval for the people you are trying to help. I don't know.
Companies used to have a smaller reach, meaning less total and potential customers. So they had to balance what what was good for the shareholders qith what was good for the customers or risk losing both. But products are often global now, especially digital ones. There seems to always be more customers to replace the ones they lose. And investors don't care as much about the long term since they can trade stocks so quickly. Maybe the solution is required holding periods for stocks or something. Higher short term capital gains taxes, and better incentives for long term gains.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue.

I'd say its one step worse than that. If you just wanted to return value to shareholders, the 2010s Facebook model of selling a few ads in between pictures of people's pets and graduation photos would work just fine. They could have churned this for decades unimpeded. And the less they fucked with the model, the more money they'd have made long term.

It isn't merely shareholder value that these companies crave, but perpetual double-digit growth in valuation. And, to that end, they're gutting the golden goose for a sudden spike in quarterly profits.

It isn't enough for Zuckerberg's company be valued at $100B. They needed to go for that fourth comma. So they started coming up with crazy - apparently impossible - ideas to reinvent themselves into... the Metaverse, where your whole OS is in VR! Diem (formerly Libra), the Killer Stablecoin! Whateverthefuck AI thing they're doing, to make human labor irrelevant!

Because they've bought into a notion of perpetual high speed growth through financialization. They cannot conceive of any kind of economic boundary or closed system. Like a deadly virus that spreads too quickly, they cannot see the edges of their population space or curb their basic impulse to consume.

There seems to always be more customers to replace the ones they lose.

So much of the drive towards AI is an insane quest to create a financial market without human customers. Just a big machine that sucks in investment capital and reports back a higher earnings figure.

It's increasingly divorced from any kind of material condition. And increasingly predicated on unfettered access to an unlimited pool of natural resources backed by an unchallenged Petrodollar.

So I will disagree on one point. If facebook stayed with just a few ads, that would not make value for the shareholders. Shareholders only make money if the stock price goes up, which requires people to buy it at the higher price. And if the company isn't growing double digits, buyers will go elsewhere. So the drive to produce shareholder value forces companies to chase the double digit growth or die. And shareholders want quick gains, so they can move on to the next company with double digit growth.

It's not the ceos who are the reason for all this. It's that all this causes boards to chose ceos that operate this way. People see that, and then aspire to do the same so they can be rich. This is why ceos spend so much time essentially marketing thier companies ideas. Thats how you get the stock price to go up. Buyers buy on the perception that a company is doing great things, or will. Reality doesn't often factor in like people think it does.

As for AI. They don't care about replacing humans. All they care about is a sales pitch that makes the stock price go up. If telling people that there software will replace humans does that, then that is what they will say. They don't let reality get in the way.

[–] MortUS@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Government should be the balancing act in response to this. Regulations enforced by Governments.

That is a nice thought. But the government has never been "for" the people. And you can't reasonably expect people who are chosen by a popularity contest to be able to devise a way to provide that balance. It's not a required skill to get elected. And you can't expect the voters to know what real skills a polotician has. The spin and propaganda are just to effective at manipulating voter impressions. So it can't be the government...

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

It won't stop until stocks are no longer a thing.

Honestly it seems like a bad idea to have stocks in the first place

Like a loan shark you can never get rid of.

Why does this even exist ?

I remember learning about the stock market in grade school and I thought it was stupid then and I think it's stupid now.

It's harmful in pretty much every way.

This is the race to the bottom I mentioned. If one country doesn't allow stock in their companies to be bought, the companies can't make as much money. So they don't form as often or move. Then that country goes into a recession. Overall, it is the lack of a world wide coordinated effort to prevent the incentives to mortgage the future for gains today.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jtrek@startrek.website 60 points 1 day ago

The problem is capitalism. Specifically, the consolidation of power in a small number of decision makers.

Break up the big companies. Stop letting them do mergers and acquisitions. You don't even have to do something radical like dismantling capitalism entirely.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 71 points 1 day ago (5 children)

the term enshittification refers to the deliberate degradation of a service or product, particularly in the digital sphere

That's not exactly what it is, though. Enshittification is the deliberate degradation of a product for the purpose of extracting maximum revenue, where the product is progressively degraded up to the point where the consumer ditches it, but not exactly to it.

Without the tie to maximum revenue and measurement of consumer ability to cope, it's hard to understand why enshittification is so brutally frustrating.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Cory Doctorow describes the stages of enshittification as follows:

It’s a three stage process: First, platforms 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.

And for good measure he reminds us of the why and how things used to be better:

The pre-enshittification era wasn’t a time of better leadership. The executives weren’t better. They were constrained. Their worst impulses were checked by competition, regulation, self-help and worker power.

https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-ea343342b9bc

[–] manxu@piefed.social 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You know, I agree with him that the pre-enshittification era wasn't a time of better leadership, but I don't think he got the reason for the change right. I think what we call Late Stage Capitalism comes from a single source: corporations don't give a rat's ass any longer if they exist in ten years. They are willing to toss reputation and long-term prospects out the window because the only metric that matters is quarterly numbers.

It's a thing I noticed on the Internet. I wondered why so many sites become big and then shoot themselves in the foot. We are on Lemmy (well, I am on Piefed) now, many of us from enshittified Reddit. But Reddit was the savior from an enshittified Digg, which was the savior from an enshittified Slashdot, etc. It figures that each iteration knew they were going to die making the choice they made, but also knew the quarter would be spectacular.

That worries me, because it's much easier to destroy something than to build it. If you go and look, the Internet is slowing down. It isn't being innovated, despite the need to do so. Instead, the big players see something grow, and they use their massive resources to buy it and kill it.

That's why I love open source: what is being built has long term plans. The main way that open source projects get enshittified is when they close source innovation and then follow the same trajectory as the big companies.

[–] joostjakob@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're being overly optimistic about the dying part. Folks here are not exactly a random sample - even if many people see the enshittification of Facebook or Reddit, they will feel unable to leave. Especially for social media there's a huge network effect - the value of the product is in the fact that "everyone" is there. Or for Google products: there are just so many different problems for the user to solve (if there's a current solution at all!) before being able to move. So yes, the focusing on quarterly profits extracts value at the cost of everyone else, but it might not be enough to kill the product. Or at least not for quite a long time. For me the root of the problem is that we gave up on countering monopolies. This has always been a grave enemy of "efficient" capitalism, but over the last few decades we kind of stopped efforts to prevent this. It automatically leads to worse service for any client, not just in the digital sector. Worse, it leass to concentration of power in such few hands that any political system shifts into an oligarchy.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I do get it. I made fun of my younger brother because he still uses a yahoo.com email address, and then my older brother chimed in from his hotmail account.

Also agree on the dangers of monopolies. It may just have happened that the FTC was unable to crush them before they got too big, a side effect of Internet growth. The processes to control corporations could not cope with the phenomenal growth of Google, Facebook, and lately openAI.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 7 points 22 hours ago

Feels very fitting for The Guardian to downplay how the profit motive inherent in capitalism contributes to enshittification, even when Doctorow's original definition clearly includes it.

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago

Actually, I think that's the main process of enshittification, but I don't think enshittification is always deliberate.

Very often software products are tweaked, changed, or even degraded in an attempt to "simplify" or "improve" a particular user experience at the expense of another UX.

And to make matters worse, some companies end up with a Frankenstein product of confusing functions because they are trying to cater to two entirely different user bases within the same product.

E.g. Microsoft may genuinely have believed that changing their system settings UI in Windows 11 to "consolidate and reduce drift" of system configurations would improve the everyday user experience, but they failed to account for the decades of inertia they'd built up from their prior OS user base and how that would piss off a not-insignificant number of other users who had grown accustomed to the way the product had previously worked.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago

“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,”

Ummm... It's happening constantly in the "analogue" world.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 points 20 hours ago

You'd need to make better humans first. oops

load more comments
view more: next ›