Enshittification

[videogamesm12]

After the massive booms in the economy for tech companies that happened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a phenomenon has massively resurfaced since then that has lingered in practically every online service we use. Like a parasite, it leeches away the life of these companies and the quality of their services and leaves us the consumers to either pick up the pieces or get screwed over. This thread aims to document the downfall of quality and how companies' desperate measures to remain profitable have come at a cost of consumer rights and the quality of the products we consume.

Google​

The company that once had the motto "don't be evil" has made a complete 180 and has become one of the worst examples of enshittification as it has continued to rely more and more on profits coming from advertisements and selling their consumers' data. They own a massive cornerstone of the internet and the infrastructure holding it together with a near-monopoly on the browser market with Google Chrome (and its open source counter part, Chromium), a duopoly over the mobile market with the Android operating system shared with Apple and the iOS operating system, and a monopoly over the online media market with YouTube.

YouTube​

YouTube needs no introduction, since practically everyone with access to the internet knows about it. Its rise and substantial growth over the course of the 2000s absolutely changed how we consume media today and launched the careers of many celebrities. It has been suffering from a terminal case of enshittification for years, to the point where the site it was and the culture it fostered 8 years ago is completely different from what it is now. What was once a platform and culture with the motto "Broadcast Yourself" has devolved to the likes of "Monetize Yourself". People have resorted to getting several sponsorships or begging for likes mid-video which disrupt the flow of the content they want people to watch. Let's take a dive into how it devolved.

2012 & 2013 - Google+ Mandate​

YouTube's enshittification was kickstarted in 2012 when they started mandating Google+ accounts for anyone who wanted to create a new YouTube account. Although this alone wouldn't have been a big deal, it was massively ramped up by the fact that Google+ had a requirement that you use an actual, real name to even own such an account and if you didn't comply or had a name that they didn't think was actually a name, they threatened to suspend (or in other words ban) your account until you actually changed it to something more believable:

Hi,

The name you provided on your Google+ profile, Deez Nuts, does not look like a name. It may be that the name you provided is that of a business or group you represent, or a pseudonym or username from another service. Or it may be that Deez Nuts is actually your name, and we made an error. Please sign in to your Google+ profile to update your name or to send us information about your name. If you don't take one of these steps in the next 4 days, your Google+ profile will be suspended.

While suspended, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile, such as Google+. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.

We're sorry for the inconvenience.

Sincerely,

The Google+ team.

Controversy arose amongst the YouTube community in late 2013 after Google, probably in a conference room that looked like this, brilliantly decided that the average YouTube commenter absolutely wanted to have their real name associated with the kind of shit they said in comment sections. So, they fucked everyone over by mandating a Google+ account in order to be able to comment on literally any video. In addition, they fellated themselves with a video uploaded on November 6th which showed their vision for how they thought people would use their new shitty system.

View attachment Meet the new YouTube comments [bVGp8Z8Yb28].mp4​

The YouTube community, including usually-polarizing content creators, pretty much came to a consistent consensus that this was a fucking awful idea, and boy does the like to dislike ratio of the video from within its first week demonstrate this - within 10 days there were 2,332 likes vs. 47,406 dislikes. The consensus wasn't just limited to this, however. Content creators from different corners of the site and of all kinds almost immediately uploaded videos discussing this decision in an extremely negative tone. Jawed Karim, one of the co-founders of YouTube, expressed his distaste at the time through his channel's discussion page by asking the million dollar question.

​

Google's incredibly optimistic view on what they thought people would do with this new system also turned out to be completely wrong. Nobody actually used these videos to ping people in their "circles" because such a concept was fucking retarded. Some of the more devious shitposty parts of the site decided to abuse the new system to high hell by setting their name to the likes of well known figures (including Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, and Barrack Obama) and posting all sorts of raunchy spam comments which includes ascii art of all calibers (unicorns, swastikas, penises, etc) along with other nonsense, much to the dismay of pretty much everyone who had a popular comment section.

Screenshots pulled manually from videos of the time​

2015 - Preferential Treatment​

WIP

2016 - #WTFU​

WIP

2017 - Adpocalypse, Elsagate, Bad UI Revamp​

WIP

2018 - Preferential Treatment: Part II, Corporate Pandering​

WIP

2021 - Dislike Button Removal​

WIP

2023 - "Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube"​

WIP

Microsoft​

Another prominent example of enshittification taking a turn for the worse has to be Microsoft and the enshittified offerings they have been providing consumers.
WIP

 

[Telesphoreo]

bro took a page out of enshitification and posted a half complete thread

 

[Tizz]

bro took a page out of enshitification and posted a half complete thread

We're witnessing the enshittification of Video

Jokes apart, it's an enlightening topic, of which I've saved the original article that talks about it. Here's the ominous opening statement:

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.

 

[AdaLux]

yet again video gets mad at the Natural Consequences of Capitalism but fails to see the problem is Capitalism

 

[Telesphoreo]

yet again video gets mad at the Natural Consequences of Capitalism but fails to see the problem is Capitalism

What about enshittification can you pinpoint exactly to capitalism? I'm sure there's many factors at play than just outright "capitalism bad durr hurr". Is the stock market itself bad, or just the investors who demand extreme profits? It's also possible for governments to step in and regulate and it's been done plenty of times. Tech companies are still relatively new all things considered and there's been plenty of monopolies and predatory companies that have been regulated or broken up by the government. Although, with the insider trading going on within our government, and the very good returns that tech companies do make, you have to ask if it's the best interest of the government to regulate what makes them a good profit for the betterment of our consumers? The answer right now is no, obviously not. That's a problem fundamentally different than just the concept of capitalism.

 

[AdaLux]

What about enshittification can you pinpoint exactly to capitalism? I'm sure there's many factors at play than just outright "capitalism bad durr hurr". Is the stock market itself bad, or just the investors who demand extreme profits? It's also possible for governments to step in and regulate and it's been done plenty of times. Tech companies are still relatively new all things considered and there's been plenty of monopolies and predatory companies that have been regulated or broken up by the government. Although, with the insider trading going on within our government, and the very good returns that tech companies do make, you have to ask if it's the best interest of the government to regulate what makes them a good profit for the betterment of our consumers? The answer right now is no, obviously not. That's a problem fundamentally different than just the concept of capitalism.

Everything you just said is a result of capitalism

-"is the stock market itself bad or the investors" investors demanding extreme profits is the natural conclusion to the existence of a stock market
-yes, as you said the government has no reason to regulate. this is because they have stakes in said companies. due to capitalism.
-all companies are predatory. their only goal is profit and this will always be the case, so they will keep on enshitifying everything because that's the easiest way to make profit. investors and CEOs don't give a shit about you or anyone else, they would sell your soul for an extra 5$ and this has been proven time and time again- the only way to solve corporate profiteering and corruption is to get rid of the root cause; capital

 

[Telesphoreo]

-"is the stock market itself bad or the investors" investors demanding extreme profits is the natural conclusion to the existence of a stock market

No, that's not the only reason. It's to raise capital as well.

-yes, as you said the government has no reason to regulate. this is because they have stakes in said companies. due to capitalism.

Government issue. Not capitalism.

-all companies are predatory. their only goal is profit and this will always be the case, so they will keep on enshitifying everything because that's the easiest way to make profit. investors and CEOs don't give a shit about you or anyone else, they would sell your soul for an extra 5$ and this has been proven time and time again- the only way to solve corporate profiteering and corruption is to get rid of the root cause; capital

This is an opinion, not a fact.

 

[AdaLux]

No, that's not the only reason. It's to raise capital as well.

Government issue. Not capitalism.


This is an opinion, not a fact.

1. so true please google what "Capital" means
2. the government is capitalist. it is inevitable that in a capitalist system those in power are the wealthy, as they have the ability to "donate" (bribe) extreme amounts of money to candidates who enact policies in their own interest
3. no, it is a fact that companies only care about profit. there are very very very few exceptions and every company that matters is extremely predatory. all wealth is built on exploitation in this system and this is objective truth, whether it is of the working class at home or the third world.

 

[Telesphoreo]

1. so true please google what "Capital" means

You said the only point of the stock market was "investors demanding extreme profits is the natural conclusion to the existence of a stock market" which isn't true.

2. the government is capitalist. it is inevitable that in a capitalist system those in power are the wealthy, as they have the ability to "donate" (bribe) extreme amounts of money to candidates who enact policies in their own interest

Corrupt is a better word to describe this than capitalism.

3. no, it is a fact that companies only care about profit. there are very very very few exceptions and every company that matters is extremely predatory. all wealth is built on exploitation in this system and this is objective truth, whether it is of the working class at home or the third world.

You said "all companies". Also, still not true.