EDITED TO MAKE THE TITLE MORE APPROPRIATE. The previous title of this post was “I need to tell you something unsatisfying: your personal consumption choices will not make a meaningful difference to the amount of enshittification you experience in your life” which was the slug line as it appeared in my mailing-list-to-RSS reader. Although this is the first paragraph of the linked essay, it does not do a good job of explaining the thrust of the essay, and some people (not you though) seem to be arguing with the title instead of the essay.
(Thanks to [email protected] for the heads up.)
END OF EDITED SECTION
Here’s why you’re getting enshittified: we deliberately decided to stop enforcing competition laws. As a result, companies formed monopolies and cartels. This means that they don’t have to worry about losing your business or labor to a competitor, because they don’t compete. It also means that they can handily capture their regulators, because they can easily agree on a set of policy priorities and use the billions they’ve amassed by not competing to capture their regulators. They can hold a whip hand over their formerly powerful tech workers, mass-firing them and terrorizing them out of any Tron-inspired conceits about “fighting for the user.” Finally, they can use IP law to shut down anyone who makes technology that disenshittifies their offerings.
Tldr; Join physical movements like a union to focus on actual laws being created and/or enforced while shitting on people for doing anything that else that may be positive
Also tries to sell their book bragging about how early reviews are raving about it. Provocative for clicks to say obvious shit that they’re selling. "Bruh, join a union. We need to organize a popular political party. "
Also their conclusion doesn’t read to me like it actually goes against personal conscious consumption choice. Like saying join a movement as if a movement doesn’t start with a bunch of individuals making choices about how they spend their time, use their money, speak their opinion, etc and figuring out all these individuals have a lot in common and have a common point to organize around
Article is like, “ya Linux, Signal, Mastodon, etc. But they’re all niche and you as an individual make so little difference so join a movement.”
Linux is probably the most used kernel for operating systems in the world. Not a good example. Backend operating system for the Internet. Signal is far more popular than a decade ago. Don’t know about Mastodon. Regardless if people aren’t being encouraged to engage in more private and/or decentralized Internet, why the fuck would they be engaged enough to go to some political meetup about something they don’t individually engage with and develop personal interest towards. Collective action starts with developing individual interests that converge to a collective group of individuals with shared interests.
Telling people to join movements while telling people, well actually not those movements
Also shit on people’s good causes and their small actions and not realize that those little things keep people engaged and they’re potential conversation points to bring people into more direct organized action.
Then after complaining about small niche movements that apparently won’t amount to anything long term, they point out small niche organizations that for some reason will grow and amount to something long term for reasons I imagine being that they care more about those than using decentralized and open source software (services)