Your ability to determine how another is feeling via words is lacking. I’m not fuming. I’m not even that angry. I just am having a discussion and you’re responding like you’re not even out of high school. Its just frustrating communication.
Grow up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can’t get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.
Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.
But the same result would occur in socialism. Even communism. I don’t know what you expect to happen in any societal economic structure that would suddenly give you the freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want. Jobs existed the same way all the way back then as they do now. And that was the birth of capitalism, not before it. Most didn’t own their land. It belonged to a king or emperor. Sure there are exceptions and caveats, but to say capitalism didn’t exist back then isn’t accurate. Capitalism isn’t bad. It’s how it’s implemented that makes it awful. I think we need to migrate to socialism via capitalism. But it requires winning of the minds of the populace and that won’t happen until folks have an accurate understanding of both capitalism and whatever system you want them to transition to. I don’t even know what system you’re supporting with your question. It sounds like you’re trying to describe some sort of star trek utopia that supposedly is advanced beyond economic systems (yet how many episodes revolved around trade deals between planets and races… but I digress).
Let’s not be confused here. Specialization is what allows for free time. If everyone has to farm and hunt, that’s all you’d do. Specialization is a good thing for humanity and diverse institutions and industries to arise.
Isn’t that almost what they suggested except starting at a different size and doing a binary search basically? You’re just starting the binary search after the first step of cutting into 5 lengths instead of 2.
No, you can change parts of it, but you can’t just arbitrarily say any part can simply be replaced willy nilly. That’s just childish. Changes have impact and consequences. You’re literally ignoring cause and effect. I can see nothing is worth discussing with you though if you’re going to respond with something a child would say. So we’re done here.
That’s not the way any of this works. You can’t just change a portion of the system. The US imports a ton of food. Banning something is actually a realistic ability. Ingredients have been banned before. Creati ng a system that is doomed to failure due to not thinking about it for 3 seconds is a different class of ability. We’re talking about changing the laws of a country, not breaking the laws of math and physics. I’m pro-socialism but this is an awfully thought out take. It would cause worldwide economic collapse and less to starvation around the world due to such an event.
I mean, if we’re talking about impossible things, changing the world economic structure is one of them.
You can’t socialize food production without socializing the entire economy of the world. Many countries rely on food production as their number one source of income. So you can’t just socialize one industry. Let alone getting the world to play along.
An incentive could be “offer healthy alternatives otherwise something bad will happen.” It requires meddling with the system and ignoring the free market, but sounds like I don’t think you’d disagree with disruption in the free market.
I think we just need a way to incentivize corporations to provide healthy alternatives as well (and not just HFCS, but high sugars in general, etc). Not sure of the best approach, but the bigger issue is that when every corporation is pushing cheap sellers that are addictive, its no wonder most people eat them. Like, McDonalds alone isn’t responsible, but corporations in general because their basically saying they can’t be held responsible for being successful. But they’re putting so much money into being successful and trying to be successful, that it’s difficult when you have such large entities pushing that way but then saying “it’s not our fault people are going in the direction we push”
Isn’t 14 already a legal age to work (though admittedly some caveats)?
Edit: in the US at least.
Yeah, it’s essentially similar in the US. I don’t know if kids are legally obligated to do chores, but they can work in certain family businesses without monetary compensation. I just don’t think it should be opened up to the point where you can hire any child. But in any case, pretty sure this is a troll post as their first example was cobalt mining. I mean, I guess there’s a small chance it’s not a troll, but very slim.
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.