Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 25 2023, @03:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the circle-of-life dept.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

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.

I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.

[...] Search Amazon for "cat beds" and the entire first screen is ads, including ads for products Amazon cloned from its own sellers, putting them out of business (third parties have to pay 45% in junk fees to Amazon, but Amazon doesn't charge itself these fees). All told, the first five screens of results for "cat bed" are 50% ads.

This is enshittification: surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit. From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:54AM (11 children)

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @03:54AM (#1288649)

    And given how much better 20 years ago is that now, forgive us for thinking that maybe it'll get worse 20 years from now - with some part of that harm coming from people who wet their pants over "dangerous tweets".

    Maybe if you directed some of your ire towards those that were making tweets dangerous instead of digging your heels in to defend them...

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:40AM (10 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:40AM (#1288650) Journal

    Maybe if you directed some of your ire towards those that were making tweets dangerous instead of digging your heels in to defend them...

    I'd be wasting my time. Even if they were to change which is unlikely, someone new would take their place. There's not much point to caring in the first place either since dangerous tweets are about the same as non-dangerous tweets in terms of danger to others.

    And besides, the real problem here are the people who are willing to crack down on everyone's speech because there are mean/stupid people somewhere in the world.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:54AM (9 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @04:54AM (#1288651)

      ... because there are mean/stupid people somewhere in the world

      Because people were hurt. This distinction is important because it's the reason lots of people scream about being CeNsOrEd when in actuality a private entity opted to sever their relationship with them. 🙄

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21AM (8 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:21AM (#1288652) Journal

        Because people were hurt.

        By those tweets? Prove it.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:40AM (7 children)

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:40AM (#1288654)
          Heh. Let's just say if you were right, your best efforts to defend some of these people would be a lot more sophisticated than "nuh uh, plea deals and confessions don't count!"
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:43AM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:43AM (#1288655) Journal

            Heh. Let's just say if you were right, your best efforts to defend some of these people would be a lot more sophisticated than "nuh uh, plea deals and confessions don't count!"

            While I've defended such people, they didn't merely tweet. You're moving the goalposts.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:01AM (3 children)

              by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:01AM (#1288658)
              Heh. The reason we know why the people you're blindly defending did what they did was because they talked too much. They were even told the best-case scenario of that scheme wouldn't work and they went for it anyway. Most places don't want that shit happening on their platform, not even Truth.

              Your energy would be better spent focused in the right direction.
              --
              🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:34AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @06:34AM (#1288662) Journal

                The reason we know why the people you're blindly defending did what they did was because they talked too much.

                In other words, if things went as you claim, the talking actually made the situation safer by giving information to authorities which would stop further criminal acts.

                • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:25AM (1 child)

                  by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:25AM (#1288665)
                  Maybe. But at the end of the day businesses can freely choose who they do business with. Perhaps if you change enough minds you can convince advertisers to look the other way while they facilitate altering the outcome of an election. 🤷‍♂️
                  --
                  🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:19PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @01:19PM (#1288691) Journal

                    But at the end of the day businesses can freely choose who they do business with.

                    Except of course under a variety of circumstances such as providing a public space (restricting their ability to restrict political speech, for example) or advertising their openness for who they do business with. My take is that this is in large part a bait and switch. This arbitrary censorship and massive personal data collecting isn't what users signed up for, but that's what they're getting now.

                    And if they're censoring people in exchange for benefits from a US-based government, the First Amendment comes into play. So no, there are constraints on that freedom. I think some of those come into play for major social media sites.

                    Perhaps if you change enough minds you can convince advertisers to look the other way while they facilitate altering the outcome of an election.

                    Perhaps.

            • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:37PM (1 child)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday January 26 2023, @05:37PM (#1288735) Journal

              Seditious Conspiracy is a plot to overthrow the government. They did their plotting via tweet. And they were convicted of this crime by a jury of their peers.

              Messages show Rhodes and the Oath Keepers discussing the prospect of a “bloody” civil war and the need to keep Biden out of the White House.

              Four Oath Keepers convicted of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy [apnews.com]

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:24PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 26 2023, @07:24PM (#1288768) Journal

                Messages show Rhodes and the Oath Keepers discussing the prospect of a “bloody” civil war and the need to keep Biden out of the White House.

                And? The story has better:

                Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keepers amassed weapons and stashed them at a Virginia hotel for so-called “quick reaction force” teams that could quickly shuttle guns into Washington to support their plot if they were needed. The weapons were never used.

                Defense attorneys sought to downplay violent messages as mere bluster and said the Oath Keepers came to Washington to provide security at events before the riot. They seized on prosecutors’ lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan to storm the Capitol before Jan. 6 and told jurors that the extremists who attacked the Capitol acted spontaneously like thousands of other rioters.

                Hackett, Moerschel and other Oath Keepers approached the Capitol in a military-style stack formation before they entered the building, according to prosecutors. Minuta and his group from a second stack of Oath Keepers clashed with police after heeding Rhodes’ call to race to the Capitol, according to court documents.

                Prosecutors said that Vallejo, a U.S. Army veteran and Rhodes ally, drove from Arizona to prepare with the “QRF” — the quick reaction force — at the hotel outside Washington. Jurors heard an audio recording of Vallejo talking about a “declaration of a guerilla war” on the morning of Jan. 6.

                That's real evidence but notice that key phrases "the weapons were never used" and "lack of evidence that the Oath Keepers had an explicit plan" (presumably the prosecution disagrees). Basically, if law enforcement on the scene had acted brutally, then we might see some real though disorganized sedition. But neither happened.

                And that's a story of seditious conspiracy I'm willing to buy should we find more evidence for it (which might be in the court documents though no one has mentioned it yet): that there was intent by this group to use these protests to push the defenses of the Capitol hard enough that the escalation of large scale shooting started. That would provide ideological cover for the guns to come out of storage (they did have those "rapid deployment teams") and mass sedition/civil war to start. But so far, I still have yet to hear more here than a bunch of ITG (Internet tough guys) ranting about how awesome they'll be when the civil war starts and organizing their part of the January 6 protest (definitely not spontaneously!). The firearms could just as well be part of a paranoid, ill-thought self-defense plan (though that would be during the commission of at least felony trespass and unlikely to hold up in court as self-defense).

                I still have yet to see the damning evidence of seditious conspiracy, but they do show remarkable bad behavior and numerous other crimes committed. They did plan their actions ahead of time which would be necessary for any sort of conspiracy charge. And if the police acted in the way that they expected or worried about, there probably would be a lot more deaths.

                Again, this doesn't show a need for censorship of social media. Instead, I'd say social media helped defuse the situation by more rapidly bringing down public condemnation of the protest. There was remarkable professionalism and restraint on the part of the police involved versus the thuggish behavior of the protesters - much which was available unfiltered through that social media. And as a result, the protesters failed hard and more thoroughly than if they could have offered the excuse of censorship as to why they looked bad.