The whole capitalist infrastructure is designed for corporations to fully exploit profitability to the most extreme possible result. Sure, we can blame capitalism, which is a useless activity. In fact, it’s a harmful stance because blaming capitalism artificially puts solutions out of reach.

Within this capitalist system we are stuck with, can you blame the corporate enshitifiers? Again, same problem. Doing so puts the solution out of reach as corporations who work for their shareholders (not you) laugh all the way to bank.

It’s our fault. We have control and we squander it. You don’t have to solve CAPTCHA puzzles. You don’t have to switch to the clearnet every time a website blocks Tor. You don’t have to send a message to a GAFAM recipient. It’s because spineless pushovers fail to stand up for themselves and solve CAPTCHAs, tolerate cookie walls, and do whatever dance the corps force on us. We need more people to get a constitution and stop licking boots.

Corporations are doing their job (profiting). We are not doing our job. As consumers, it is OUR job to reject the garbage and ensure that we don’t make enshitification profitable.

  • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
    11·
    11 months ago

    the problem is that regulation part is broken. … Enshittification is our fault, but not for the reason you suggest.

    (emphasis mine)

    The problem is not singular. It starts with consumers failing to do their job. It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that enablers are not at fault because there are other faults in the system. The enablers are at fault, of course for serving as enablers (as I suggest). Voters (be they enablers as consumers or not) are also at fault. I stress also, because you can be at fault for serving as an enabler who (e.g.) solves CAPTCHAs, while simultaneously voting poorly. But it must be said, voting in general exections is an extremely blunt instrument. It is very close to blaming an inanimate object.

    Even if voting were perfectly effective, it’s bizarre to think that electing opponents of Thatcher, Reagan, and Trump would in the slightest make a difference. In fact democrats in the US (Obama in particular) get most of their corporate support from the tech industry, likely because they would be a threat in the absence of that bribery.

    Enshitification is not even on the radar of politicians. They wouldn’t give one sentence to it. This is in fact for the reason I suggest: consumers have taken the side of enablers. You can see it just in the votes of this thread.

    Politicians look at metrics. (update: link)

    My energy supplier sent me a notice telling me to submit my meter reading digitally. There is a CAPTCHA blocking me from doing so. If everyone solves the CAPTCHA, the politicians don’t even know there is a problem. People who are too lazy to submit their meter reading the old fashioned way are sure as hell too lazy to write a complaint. But if 3% of the consumers were to refuse the CAPTCHA and perhaps complain to either the supplier or the suppliers regulator, that would create a metric that politicians see. I do my part to ensure my protest appears in a metric that is seen by a politician. This happens in parallel to refusing the CAPTCHA.

    Solving the CAPTCHA send the opposite signal: that the mechanism works.

    Here’s the thing: protesting enshittification takes expertise, time, and energy. I’ve been working on degoogling and such, and it’s honestly difficult. Installing Linux is easier now than it used to be, but it’s still a learning curve for the average person.

    You do not have to be an expert to oppose CAPTCHAs. Every form of enshitification has varying degrees of detection due to varying degrees of expertise. With knowledge comes responsibilty. To the extent that you can recognise the enshitification and avoid it, you have a social responsibility for doing so. It doesn’t work to say your neighbor is not tech literate enough to recognize dark pattern Y, so you are somehow absolved of your duty. It’s another matter entirely to talk about duty to be informed, which is of course debatable.

    In addition, we can create regulations that benefit and protect the average person,

    The GDPR has been a shit-show. It does cover many shenanigans with cookies and dark patterns (which are covered as well as possible in the European Data Protection Board’s guidelines 03/2022). But until you read how this unfolds into codified law, you are far to confident and reliant on the legal approach. Just as we see climate action being a disaster for the same reasons.

    How would you codify a law against CAPTCHAs? The govs themselves use them. You cannot search the business registration databases of many US state secretaries because of a CAPTCHA. Precisely codifying circumstances to prohibit without excessive nannying but at the same time without being useless is a great feat in itself, and also an enforcement nightmare.

    I am up to my neck in GDPR violations, many of which are quite blunt and simple to prove, yet not a single report I’ve submitted leads to enforcement.

    Hope that regulation will solve enshitification is rediculous in the face of more important policies like Article 17 of the GDPR goes without enforcement. It’s not THE answer – not in the slightest. By all means, write to lawmakers and ask for anti-enshitification law, for all it’s worth, but it would be the least effective option on the table. Boycotts are more under your control and can be more effective. And boycotts lead to metrics that politicians see.