- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- hackernews@derp.foo
cross-posted from: https://derp.foo/post/250090
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
If it’s proprietary, it’ll be enshittified as soon as shareholder value demands.
Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.
Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.
The enshitification of enshitification
to add to this for people that are unsure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
There is still value in calling out the exploitation. It might not be as shitty as leveraging different customer pools, but it absolutely is the same exact business mindset that creates enshittification.
I don’t think it’s wrong to at least associate the two things even if “enshittification” remains more about gearing systems to exploit customers vs basic direct exploitation of customers.
But their entirely different processes. One is exploiting one market vs the other. Here it wouldn’t necessarily be exploiting a market, but destroying value of a free service. If you’re worried about personal info being the exploitation, it’s going to be very limited and likely already in place. An account structure is usually more the first move toward monetizing the service directly and enabling the ability between free and premium services. That’s still shitty, but for entirely different reasons. So I just don’t like seeing the original word lose all meaning whatsoever beyond its root word. It basically guts it of all of its nuance and importance and just turns it into a noun form of taking something and making it shitty. We don’t need to do that.
I don’t think they’re entirely different. Enshittification is just a specific type. Yes, of course it has distinguishing qualities or we’d be having a totally different convo.
IMO, it’s more important to realize enshittification is not a new development! It’s just way, WAY more obvious now that the ruling class has allowed effective monopolies to rise again. When only one or two companies control an entire market, their shitty tactics become way, way more obvious and painful for consumers.
The general driving force is different though. It’s a process that involves devaluing a service by basically commoditizing two forces against each other. Simply dropping value-added features to save money is just the race to the bottom.
Dropping a feature is the equivalent of charging for extra BBQ sauce packets. It’s not the same driving force like Instagram where they play two forces against each other. Like the way Google has been going with shoving way too many ads in there. That is a different motivation because it’s valuing one customer at the expense of another. Something like dropping free service XYZ is just cutting costs.
The word is getting overplayed and it feels like everyone has the same word-a-day calendar and are now trying to use it as much as possible.
It’s more impactful and retains meaning if we keep it succinct instead of just the equivalent of “an unpopular decision that saves money to increase shareholder value”. It’s all about recognizing you are a product as well as a user. It’s that the services don’t have an incentive to serve you. Its just so much more meaningful as long as we don’t remove all of that meaning to just show we don’t like corporatism.
It’s a lemmy buzzword that tastes like Reddit’s “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” at this point.
If you do not believe in FAFO as a fundamental truth (even if it is said often) then you might just be dumb.
Don’t let annoyed obstinance turn you in to a dummy denying basic facts of reality.
The fuck are you TALKING about?! I made no such claim, you extrapolated some insane bullshit from me saying Lemmy has an overused catchphrase.
It’s obviously a thing that exists and happens all the time, I didn’t deny that but somehow in your eyes me saying “that word is overused here” is saying “all companies are benevolent and have my best interests at heart”!
Shoo.
Calling it a “buzzword” is dismissive of it. Or are you also too stupid to understand subtext?
What part of “Shoo” are you incapable of comprehending?
bahaha truly pathetic
Nah. He called it that, but the word follows grammatical* structure well enough that it can be easily understood and used in a more general sense. “the gradual increase in which something is shit” = “enshitification”.
Fits for what he wanted to use it for. Fits for a whole lot more. One cannot gatekeep language. Whatever is the most effective way to transfer a concept from one mind as to be similarly understood in someone else’s, ultimately is language.
* maybe not grammar, but you get what I mean
Prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar.
Descriptive grammar describes language, and tries to understand the structure and usage of words and sentences. Prescriptive grammar dictates how it should be used.
Except the language is weaker as we’ve lost the ability to transfer one idea easily because people like re-using the word because they think it makes them sound educated on the topic. It’s being used because of Doctorow, not because of any other reason. So I call bullshit on it just being grammatical.
This might come across a little bit insulting, and I mean it that way too if it hits home.
You are putting way to much value into the creation of this word. It is the descriptive noun “shit” followed by the suffix “-ification”. It doesn’t need to be “coined” by anyone attributing any other meaning than what you would get by a descriptive noun, followed by “-ification”. Adding the prefix en- is a nice embellishment.
So, perhaps the dude made it become a used word, but to presume a word’s origin defines it is a bit silly. That isn’t how language work. If enough people like a word, and like for it to mean something, then… that’s what that word means, because that’s what “meaning” means. Sometimes, it is exceedingly frustrating when it breaks with the original meaning, e.g. “literally” being used for “figurative”. In this case, it does not. So why would anyone give a shit if someone thinks a word should mean something else than what it literally means.
It doesn’t come across insulting at all. It comes across as naive.
Like, it literally has a Wikipedia page and doesn’t mention anything else.
I mean, literally isn’t used to mean just figuratively. It’s actually an exaggeration to mean that the concept is so strong that it literally triggered the figurative comparison for real. Context is key there. And context is important. That’s the great thing about that though is you rarely need extra information to show which definition you mean. If I said it’s so hot outside that I’m literally on fire, you don’t need to question the meaning.
But here? Let’s be honest. The word usage has exploded on Lemmy. They wanted so badly to use the term in the cool way. No one would have used the word that way before. No one uses its ‘literal’ definition now really. Because it’s generally not how humans in society have discussions. No one describes the enshitification of something as a clinical description. If it were used as a joke? Sure. But now it’s either someone so divorced from reality that they don’t even know how to communicate or it’s just folks who heard the word, thought it was cool, but didn’t really understand it. That’s all that is. I can’t believe folks are trying to defend the “evolution” of language on one hand by describing a loss of accuracy and clarity in language, but then on the ither hand defending it from some weird historical perspective. It’s honestly entertaining to see people come at this and argue with entirely contradictory points of view. “Words change meaning and this is it’s new meaning” vs “that’s been its meaning forever”. Like, let’s try to at least coordinate the defense of the person who wanted to sound cool. No one says “enshittified” in place of “it’ll go to shit” or “get fucked”. But instead you expect me to believe this is some ole-timey bastard saying, “sir, it will be enshittified.” Come on buddy. It’s weird you even thought all those words you spoke would sound insulting. Like you actually had a good point or something. See? That last bit there. That’s what something insulting sounds like.
Words change. He came up with a really good one and people ran with it. It no longer means what he initially made it to mean. That’s how all language in all of the world works.
You’re saying that if someone wants to descibe enshittification they need to invent a word for it?
Did you reply to the right guy? That’s definitely not what I said.
You said that the definition of enshittification has changed since January, meaning that if someone wanted to describe “the process formerly known as enshittification” they’d presumeably need a new word, right?
I not disagreeing with you that words change over time, I’m just trying to keep up!
No. I hope that answers your question.
Except it means nothing in that usage. Some people ran with it. Others decided to not be ridiculous and just apply it without rhyme or reason. Outside the Fediverse, it’s nearly unknown. Inside the fediverse, when it’s misused, it’s usually in a very obvious and uncritical manner. It is still commonly used properly.
Don’t take the power away from words just because you literally like the word itself. It’s immature.
If you use it to apply to all unpopular corporate decisions, it’s no longer powerful and doesn’t have any meaning.
This isn’t a new thing, my brother. Half the words you use on a given day probably had a different meaning when they came about. If anyone is being immature here, it’s you guys who seem to think English should be static and never updated. And for what it’s worth, I think it’s used pretty accurately when I see it get used, and I think the way it was used in this thread is apt.
So now we don’t have a word anymore to describe something that we used to have a word. And we already had words to describe what the person above was.
The language has lost use.
Again, that’s how language has worked for literally centuries, but I completely disagree with your conclusion. If you’re not yet aware, some words, can have multiple meanings even with the same spelling.
Except due to the new usage one now has to basically define it to give it the correct context. It’s lost its power to be used and immediately understood. If what you say is true, it cannot be used efficiently to why it was coined.
And pretending it’s not suddenly being used because of Doctorow is naive.
Hey man. Get some air.