Jump to content

Talk:Enshittification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lyeuhm (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 11 January 2024 (→TikTok: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not for Wired

While Wired did reprint my "Tiktok's Enshittification" essay, they did so under my Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license; the actual original publication was on my blog, pluralistic.net:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys Doctorow (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've updated the article accordingly. — The Anome (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification is how platforms die? Source: "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." Wired

Moved to mainspace by Thriley (talk), The Anome (talk), and Grayfell (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Enshittification; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • This one'll do numbers! The article isn't quite there yet, though -- it has an unresolved clarification needed tag, and the rent-seeking claim is uncited. Once these get resolved, the article should be (while not passing GAN anytime soon) DYK-able. I'm mulling over the large quote in a short article -- proportionately it raises what's arguably a copyright question -- but I'm not sure if it should be perceived differently to use of an NFCC image in an equivalent-length article. (I also wonder about general-reader understanding of decontextualized "two-sided markets", but this isn't a DYK issue.) Vaticidalprophet 22:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I propose a tweak to the hook:
  • ... that according to Cory Doctorow, enshittification inevitably leads to death? StonyBrook babble 10:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet, Thriley, The Anome, and Grayfell: We have WP:REFCLUTTER eight citations following the lead sentence and nine following another sentence under the examples section. It is distracting but not a DYK fail. The article does have WP:BAREURLS which must be fixed. WP:DYKCITE states that Sources should be properly labelled; that is, not under an "External links" header, and not bare URLs. I think my interpretation is correct, but if it is not, it is a best practice to format the references MOS:REF. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally mind the ref clutter, given the sentence's content. However, you might consider combining all of them into one ref with bullet points for what each ref supports. In addition, I'd like to see that content be fully mirrored in the article body per MOS:LEAD. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I will leave it to others since it is not a DYK issue. I see the references are formatted now. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last issue is WP:DYKHFC The facts of the hook in the article should be cited no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear.. right now the hook fact is in a block quote and I do not think that passes our requirement. Can it be separated out and cited end of sentence? Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the hook fact in the article for expediency. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rent-seeking

Googling around, lots of discussion threads make the connection between rent-seeking and enshittification, typically the former being the action or motivation and the latter being the effect on the end-users/consumers. Doctorow, refering[1] to one of his podcasts[2], says "#enshittification, and how it is a pathology of digital platforms, distinct from the rent-seeking of the analog world that preceded it:". It's not clear whether that means he sees enshittification a distinctly modern digital version of rent-seeking, or a distinctly different kind of thing even though it might have some of the same hallmarks. And the twiddler link doesn't appear to use the exact term "rent-seeking" in order to figure it out. So without WP:OR reading of that post, I think rent-seeking could be a SEEALSO (a main person who writes about enshittification makes some sort of explicit connection) but not an in-body comment. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is new and "hot" (active research topic, topic of discussion and scholarly debate), so there are still not that many sources making this connection (explicitly). The only (very recent!) source I know of is Yanis Varoufakis' new book discussing exactly this topic. I think it's prudent to wait a while for more reliable sources to appear before making the connection explicit in the article. A mention in the "See also" section is fine by me, since the two topics are obviously related (if not connected). TucanHolmes (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Online platforms only?

Does enshittification apply only to online platforms? I am not the first to suggest not (see Gilbert Grape).

Enshittification also occurs when major retailers move into a diverse market, undercut local stores on price, eliminate competition, cut back on customer service, increase prices, curtail choice via pay-to-play, and undercut the whole market by favoring their own in-house brands. Elettricompagna (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're describing dumping and anticompetitive practices. Enshittification explicitly relates to two-sided markets such as social media and online commerce platforms.
I would imagine that enshittification could also happen to something like entirely offline like a farmer's market by first grinding down the buyers by charging admission fees, then the sellers by increasing pitch fees, until insufficient value is left to justify the market's continued existence. — The Anome (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Term was coined before 2023

Doctorow actually first used the term "enshittification" earlier than January 2023, in the November 2022 Medium post "Social Quitting", which was later published in the January 2023 issue of Locus magazine. I remembered the earlier post because I made a comment on the brilliance of the term at that time. Funcrunch (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article, thanks. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Engine

I've removed the material relating to Unity. While the move by Unity certainly qualifies for criticism as a highly customer-unfriendly move, Unity was not, as I understand it, operating a two-sided market in the sense used by Doctorow in his definition of the term. — The Anome (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight given to term

This article concerns me as it takes a loosely defined and infrequently used term, and seeks to validate and expand on its definition, rather than simply inform. The article mixes and confuses the definitions for 'zombie acquisition' and 'platform decay', which are both pre-existing and better-understood terms (the latter being used by the attributed creator of the term 'enshittification' in this article: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/platforms-decay-lets-put-users-first). On the whole I feel that the article gives undue weight to the term 'enshittification', and reads to me like an advert for the work of the journalist that created it, and this isn't the purpose or function of Wikipedia. Interested to hear the thoughts of others! Baspinga (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On articles about neologisms (WP:WORDISSUBJECT), Wikipedia likes to add examples that are based wholly on original research, i.e. examples sourced to articles that don't even use the term at all. It's inevitable unless pagewatchers are vigilant. WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles also tend to veer, over time, away from being about the term, and it's a mistake that causes confusion among both readers and editors. Articles about neologisms should be about the term, because they should naturally contain discussion about how accurately the concept reflects reality, what exactly it encompasses, and contrast the frame of analysis embedded within the term to other frames of analysis applicable to the issue (there are plenty). Trying to add examples based on passing use in news articles is more akin to the cruft we see in "In popular culture" sections in other articles. What's useful, is illustrating what the term means in practice, which requires sources that bring up an example and discuss why and to what extent the term applies; we have such sources but we're not using them well. DFlhb (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enshittified Youtube

Youtube's algorithm has been enshittified over the years. Drive for profit resulted in content prioritization and removal of easy access for users to see a creator's content in chronological order.

About the recent ad fight, Youtube is trying to block the ad blockers, Google Chrome also announced that it will drop support to ad blockers plugins. At the same time Youtube is increasing the ad' screen time by either increasing the amount of ads and/or increasing the non skippable time of each ad to annoy the audience and push the premium signature as a alternative to people who don't want to watch the ads, but they are also increasing the price for the premium signature, see.

Enshittified Gizmodo

Company behind Gizmodo, Jalopnik and other media sites under their umbrella have deteriorated the user experience by introducing more slide-show articles versus long-form articles to increase their website's click count. Recently, the algorithm was changed to where there would be a pause after you hit next to hold users longer on each slide at the expense of the user experience. Tapac333 (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Enshittification and profitability

Typically, companies need to maintain a profit to exist. Therefore drive for profit needs to be part of the equation. What Enshittification represents is when the drive for profit supersedes the user experience, reducing the initial experience the platform provided. You end up with less, for more.

An example of platforms that balanced profit well so far without being enshittified:

1) Craigslist. I think the platform never tried to get between the users and the data flow. Apart from enacting a minimal fee for posting vehicles to combat fraudulent posts and to gain some profit, I feel like that platform still exists to serve the people with a similar experience they previously provided. Tapac333 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enshittification → Platform decay – The article describes platform decay, but gives undue weight to a late 2022 buzzword, the author who coined it (WP:UNDUE), and the some of the background of his coining of the synonym (which is, after all, a self-describing word: it relies on some of the synthetic characteristics of the English language).

It is, of course, relevant to mention the buzzword somewhere, and keep Enshittification as a redirect. As it looks like today, the beginning of the article feels like an over-verbose version of a page on Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary, coupled with some author/blogger promotion. Then it has several examples of platform decay where only Doctorow's perspective is given. I don't disagree with him, his input can be justified by all means, but he can't possibly be the one and only person who has made such remarks about the decline in quality of some products. It is a process that has been going on much earlier than the blog post where the word "enshittification" was first created.

Keeping the article under the Enshittification title will lead future editors to focus about two topics at the same time: platform decay and one specific author's perspective on platform decay. Anonimski (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - buzzword or not, it looks an awful lot like enshittification is the common name at the moment. Perhaps that will change over time as more academic papers emerge, or we'll want to have a separate article on platform decay while leaving this one to speak to its use at a particular moment in time. (Also, I'm not convinced that there's an UNDUE problem, as Doctorow coined the word and popularized the associated phrase.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:GRATUITOUS - "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Given that there is another fairly common name for it, we don't have to favor the more crude option as it is not required for the article to properly explain the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the fact that the word "enshittification" itself can potentially mean almost anything becoming "shittier", and has nothing specifically referring to websites or platforms. It's simply less informative to a person searching for an article about such a thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Google Trends which shows Enshittification as a slight common name. Do think the article requires a cleanup and gives undue weight to the blogger, but that's not the job of a requested move.Esolo5002 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as others have noted Enshittification is the common name currently. I'd also invoke WP:NORUSH- it remains to be seen if a term like platform decay will gain/regain status as a common name. There's no urgent reason to change it, and time will tell if the term's popularity is a fluke or will remain in common use for this.
  • Oppose - Enshittification is the common name right now. For example, I just encountered the term on a blog post (not by Cory Doctorow) which linked to this Wikipedia article. Rubinstein (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Short description

Can we remove the word 'greed' from the short description, which currently reads Systematic decline in quality due to greed? IMO it's not accurate to attribute enshittification to greed when it's more a problem with the social media business model as a whole. That's up to debate though, so maybe we could remove that part altogether and say something like: Systematic decline in online platform quality? Open to suggestions. --Nsophiay (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok

TikTok seems to be going down the route of Enshittification.

Between the addition of TikTok Shop being forced down everyone's throats every other video, plus constant scam ads and sponsorship.

Just curious if anyone else thinks it's worthy enough of being included, or, if people feel like it doesn't fall into it yet. Lyeuhm (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enshittification&oldid=1194976215"