Again, that’s not what Cory Doctorow coined it to mean. However, the pressures that enshittify two sided marketplaces can be abstracted to general capitalist pressures that push you to squeeze profitability at every opportunity, even to the detriment of your customers.

Two sided marketplaces often have the dynamics of creating a massive sticky force that prevents competition or movement, which enables their exploitative behaviour, but non marketplace companies also find ways of creating that stickiness through other anti-competitive means, and the use that stickiness to make their products as shitty as possible to squeeze every penny they can put of people.

I think that Doctorow’s points about two sided marketplaces are extremely useful because of their specificity, they can lead directly to specific legislation, but the term of enshittification is rapidly expanding to be used more generally.

If something is shitty they’ll call it shitty. Enshittification is inherently used to refer to a process of getting shittier. And 99% of the time people are referring to capitalism / corporate greed as that process.

and it’s not even the way it’s usually misused, so even more confusing

How do you think it’s most commonly misused?

It does exemplify why it’s such an awful word in general though, so that’s helpful in some small way, I guess.

Why is it awful? Because people have generalized its original specific meaning? Or because of the awfulness it represents?

I watched Fallout and Silo in close succession and they felt like an inversion in terms of which parts were good.

Fallout felt like it’s scene to scene dialog was well written, but it’s overarching plot felt kind of nonsensical. Silo felt like it’s scene to scene writing was a little cheesy, but it’s bigger plot beats were far more nuanced and interesting.

I honestly have more faith that, being based on a series of books, Silo will turn out to be the better show. Fallout could be good, but it felt way more like the writers were laying down the tracks in front of the train as it was already rolling… Though again, at this point in time, Fallout’s still nowhere close to the level of bad writing that was the star wars prequels, let alone the newer three.

I do know that Cory Doctorow used it specifically to refer to the dynamics of two sided marketplaces. I chose to use it the way it’s more commonly used, to refer to the general enshittifying pressures of late stage capitalism, to get my point across.

I’m not completely sold, but at this point in time I’d say it’d work better with the new Fallout Show for one.

This would be a better comic if they chose a franchise that hadn’t been enshittified to the nth degree.

No there aren’t. Not at the scale that humanity currently exists. We would literally die even if we just couldn’t make fertilizer. There would be no way to produce enough food for this many people.

Bruh what the fuck are you talking about?

You think that a user being upset when they give an app full filesystem access to their phone, and then having that app be handed over to some shady new owner is entitlement?

Congratulations man, ‘skill issue’ people like you are why open source software rarely takes off. No one will use or trust any open source software if this happens. This just pushes people to use tech giants like Google and Microsoft because they’re big and stable and not about to change owners.

Don’t fucking publish your software for people to download if you’re going to pull the rug out from under them. Keep it on your local machine and jerk off to it if you don’t care about others using it.

I agree with everything you’re saying, but even speaking specialist to specialist, or say to a group of specialist colleagues who might not be working on exactly what you’re working on, you still often simplify away the technical parts that aren’t relevant to the specific conversation you’re having, and use specific language on the parts that are, because that inherently helps the listener to focus on the technical aspects you want them to focus on.

If you’re communicating with another scientist about the actual work you’re doing then sure there are times when you need to be specific.

If you’re publishing official documentation on something or writing contracts, then yes, you also need to be extremely speciific.

But if you’re just providing a description of your work to a non-specialist then no, there’s always a way of simplifying it for the appropriate context. Same thing goes for most of specialist to specialist communication. There are specific sentences and times you use the precision to distinguish between two different things, but if you insist on always speaking in maximum precision and accuracy then it is simply poor communication skills where you are over providing unnecessary detail that detracts from the actual point you’re trying to convey.

Their literal entire first paragraph is about scientists doing it.

No, I’m talking about engineers and scientists communicating with project managers, designers, lawyers, business people, and the many many other people who work in the same industry but do not have technical backgrounds.

This is nonsense. If you’re talking about doing it in the air, then you need supersonic drones that can lock on, predict the aircraft’s movement, and adjust during interception … i.e. you’re talking about a SAM system like the Patriot missile system or Russia’s S400.

If you’re talking about hunting them down at base, then you need to be able to penetrate hundreds of kms of air defenses to make it to them in the first place, and you’re just talking bout a cruise missile like the Tomahawk.

Ukraine used the element of surprise with those box trucks, it won’t be easy to pull off again.

It is for a white collar job where most people have degrees.

Fair, but fishing still requires a lot of work.

Eh I don’t really agree, depending on how simple you’re talking. Bags within bags, or dumbing things down to a grade school level, then sure, there are topics that can’t be described succinctly.

But if you’re talking about simplifying things down to the point that anyone who took a bit of undergrad math/science can understand, then pretty much everything can be described in simple and easy to understand ways.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen many people at the top who can’t, but in every case, it’s not because of the topics’ inherent complexity, but either because they don’t actually understand the topics as well as they may seem, or because they lack the social skills (or time / effort / setting) to properly analogize and adjust for the listener.

You’re literally just describing this meme.

When you don’t know shit you think it should be simpler, when you slightly understand it then you end up using technical terms because you know those terms apply and aren’t confident enough to replace them, and then once you know enough you get confident just describing everything as bags within bags.

Lol without agriculture you would literally end up eating shit and dying.