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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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.

Counterpoint: ‍️

Also:

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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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.

Defeatism will get us nowhere. The power of the people dethroned kings, and it will dethrone capitalism too.

I do agree that the actions of a single person are a drop in the bucket, but we can only fill the bucket if many of us offer their single drop. We each must do our part, no matter how insignificant that part may be.

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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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.

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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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.

Yeah fuck doing the right thing, just consume as you are told by corporationa... DEFF don't eat any broccoli, they are gross!

Also:

First, it looks like this may be a dressed up advertisement for their newly released book:

My book on Enshittification is coming out in a couple of months, and the early reviews are already coming in, and they are gratifyingly glowing.

That fact alone doesn't discount their argument, but it should be considered.

Second, I disagree with this premise of the author:

Because this isn't an individual problem, it's a systemic one.

I disagree, its both.

As the author rightly identifies, there are somethings that are only addressable systemically such as healthcare of mass transport. However a whole other host of items the author references are absolutely individual problems. Example from the author:

When all your friends are going to a festival, are you really going to opt out because the event requires you to use the Ticketmaster app (because Ticketmaster has a monopoly over event ticketing)?

Yes, I opt-out of nearly every Ticketmaster event. It is an individual problem with an individual solution.

If so, you're not gonna have a lot of friends, which is a pretty shitty way to live.

My friends largely also opt out. Perhaps we self select for like-mindedness.

This means that they don't have to worry about losing your business or labor to a competitor, because they don't compete.

They can still lose my business if I opt out of the entire industry, such as corporate social media. No amount of competitors changes my mind on that. This could also be done on streaming services, choosing to read instead etc.

This isn't just a systemic problem as the author suggests.

I think the point this article is trying to make is that while individualistic consumer-level ways to sidestep enshittification do work for those who follow them, they don't fight the bad actors back efficiently and to achieve that it needs to be done collectively.

I disagree. Boycott works. These days, you vote with your money in a more efficient way than any election.
You seem to say the problem is politic. You know politics won't change things. So you're just saying it's not your problem anymore.
But the problem still exists.
The enshittification stays there.

Defeatism will get us nowhere. The power of the people dethroned kings, and it will dethrone capitalism too.

I do agree that the actions of a single person are a drop in the bucket, but we can only fill the bucket if many of us offer their single drop. We each must do our part, no matter how insignificant that part may be.

Thank you for pointing this out. I honestly missed the link completely! I'm not usually the type to comment on a post that links to an article without reading it. Oops.

Defeatism will get us nowhere.

I agree! And, I think the linked essay agrees, also? I mean the last sentence literally says, "You can't fight enshittification. But together, we can."

That sounds very different than, "Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat. Acceptance of the inevitability of defeat. Acceptance of defeat without struggle."

I don’t care.

I avoid the services as a protest and I also enjoy the alternatives.

I’m not going to bankrupt them, but I’m not helping them.

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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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.

First, it looks like this may be a dressed up advertisement for their newly released book:

My book on Enshittification is coming out in a couple of months, and the early reviews are already coming in, and they are gratifyingly glowing.

That fact alone doesn't discount their argument, but it should be considered.

Second, I disagree with this premise of the author:

Because this isn't an individual problem, it's a systemic one.

I disagree, its both.

As the author rightly identifies, there are somethings that are only addressable systemically such as healthcare of mass transport. However a whole other host of items the author references are absolutely individual problems. Example from the author:

When all your friends are going to a festival, are you really going to opt out because the event requires you to use the Ticketmaster app (because Ticketmaster has a monopoly over event ticketing)?

Yes, I opt-out of nearly every Ticketmaster event. It is an individual problem with an individual solution.

If so, you're not gonna have a lot of friends, which is a pretty shitty way to live.

My friends largely also opt out. Perhaps we self select for like-mindedness.

This means that they don't have to worry about losing your business or labor to a competitor, because they don't compete.

They can still lose my business if I opt out of the entire industry, such as corporate social media. No amount of competitors changes my mind on that. This could also be done on streaming services, choosing to read instead etc.

This isn't just a systemic problem as the author suggests.

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 ski11erboi@lemmy.world 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)