this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
583 points (99.7% liked)

World News

54755 readers
2524 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The video’s opening shot shows a man hiding under a bed snipping in a hole in someone’s sock. Seconds later, the same man uses a saw to shorten a table leg so that it wobbles during breakfast. “My job is to make things shitty,” the man explains. “The official title is enshittificator. What I do is I take things that are perfectly fine and I make them worse.”

The video, released recently by the Norwegian Consumer Council, is an absurdist take on a serious issue; it is part of a wider, global campaign aimed at fighting back against the “enshittification”, or gradual deterioration, of digital products and services.

“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,” said Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, the council’s director of digital policy. “But this is happening every day in our digital products and services, and we really think it doesn’t need to be that way.”

Coined by author Cory Doctorow, the term enshittification refers to the deliberate degradation of a service or product, particularly in the digital sphere. Examples abound, from social media feeds that have gradually become littered with adverts and scams to software updates that leave phones lagging and chatbots that supplant customer service agents.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

As they say. The cloud is someone else's computer.

Emphasis on someone else

[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Irrelevant. They can do it to devices you physically own.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Funny, just today I found out my subscription to addy.io, the email alias company, was somehow deactivated, and I reactivated it today. Unfortunately, any emails or email metadata sent to deactivated aliases are not kept on their servers, which is fantastic for privacy, but then I start thinking, "what if these were important emails I couldn't get because my subscription was fucked with?", or "what happens if the email alias service goes down and I can't get any emails I was expecting?”. Now I'm at a crossroads as to whether or not I should continue primarily using my aliases for my emails, or just provide my true email for important services and leave potential spam/junk to the aliases.

Sidenote, the reason I wanted to use my aliases as my primary email contact was because of breaches I discovered via Have I Been Pwned. I think I did go a bit too far in the opposite direction, so now I need to find that middle ground. Definitely gonna make some changes over the next few days with my email addresses on my accounts.

[–] jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 10 points 4 hours ago

For me important stuff gets the real email address and the secondary/beyond gets the aliases

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 28 points 9 hours ago

A few days ago I tried to find the best frame of the video to turn into a meme. This is what I came up with.

[–] urshilikai@lemmy.world 27 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (4 children)

Not sure I agree with the statement that we wouldnt accpet enshittification in our analog lives... ovens and refrigerators with screens and becoming unrepairable, cars are only sold with onboard computers and power windows with no other price point, materials for most household items becoming plastic / single use / or deliberately designed with a failure lifetime. I recently started buying clothing with no synthetics and they are unfathomably better performing in terms of breathing, odor, comfort and warmth. We've forgotten what physical products used to be like, in 20 years we will have similarly forgotten what un-enshittified internet / tech was like.

I think, and perhaps it's scarier than anyone wants to admit, we've already gotten accustomed to or given up fighting against enshittification of the analog world.

The common thread is capital and financialization and there can be never be progress until the ideas in "how to win friends and influence people" are called out as demonic and unhuman.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

The fact that half of eligble voters in the US willingly voted for the ultimate enshittifier not once, but twice, is a testament to this.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

I've also started buying natural fibers only. Noticable improvements in quality of life

[–] sidelove@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you said, but why you gotta do power windows dirty like that 😭

[–] SpraynardKruger@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I don't think they were shitting on power windows, but rather the lack of option for a lower priced model without them. It wasn't too long ago that there were economy models without power windows available for certain cars.

[–] jaennaet@sopuli.xyz 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Absolutely - enshittification isn't just an internet phenomenon, but literally everything has been getting worse because oligarchs are squeezing more money out of us.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

I think the point was if it was a person physically doing it to you, you wouldn't just sit there watching them do it.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

You'd need to make better humans first. oops

[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

https://youtu.be/T4Upf_B9RLQ

Here's the video, it's funny cause it's infuriatingly true.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 19 points 11 hours ago (5 children)

As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue. It is a race to the bottom.
How do you fix that without massive upheaval for the people you are trying to help. I don't know.
Companies used to have a smaller reach, meaning less total and potential customers. So they had to balance what what was good for the shareholders qith what was good for the customers or risk losing both. But products are often global now, especially digital ones. There seems to always be more customers to replace the ones they lose. And investors don't care as much about the long term since they can trade stocks so quickly. Maybe the solution is required holding periods for stocks or something. Higher short term capital gains taxes, and better incentives for long term gains.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue.

I'd say its one step worse than that. If you just wanted to return value to shareholders, the 2010s Facebook model of selling a few ads in between pictures of people's pets and graduation photos would work just fine. They could have churned this for decades unimpeded. And the less they fucked with the model, the more money they'd have made long term.

It isn't merely shareholder value that these companies crave, but perpetual double-digit growth in valuation. And, to that end, they're gutting the golden goose for a sudden spike in quarterly profits.

It isn't enough for Zuckerberg's company be valued at $100B. They needed to go for that fourth comma. So they started coming up with crazy - apparently impossible - ideas to reinvent themselves into... the Metaverse, where your whole OS is in VR! Diem (formerly Libra), the Killer Stablecoin! Whateverthefuck AI thing they're doing, to make human labor irrelevant!

Because they've bought into a notion of perpetual high speed growth through financialization. They cannot conceive of any kind of economic boundary or closed system. Like a deadly virus that spreads too quickly, they cannot see the edges of their population space or curb their basic impulse to consume.

There seems to always be more customers to replace the ones they lose.

So much of the drive towards AI is an insane quest to create a financial market without human customers. Just a big machine that sucks in investment capital and reports back a higher earnings figure.

It's increasingly divorced from any kind of material condition. And increasingly predicated on unfettered access to an unlimited pool of natural resources backed by an unchallenged Petrodollar.

[–] MortUS@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

Government should be the balancing act in response to this. Regulations enforced by Governments.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

It won't stop until stocks are no longer a thing.

Honestly it seems like a bad idea to have stocks in the first place

Like a loan shark you can never get rid of.

Why does this even exist ?

I remember learning about the stock market in grade school and I thought it was stupid then and I think it's stupid now.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Stocks aren't necessarily a bad thing since they in theory represent abstract ownership of a thing. Perfectly fine when privately held, it becomes an increasingly problematic thing when. Traded on an open market though.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think whenever stocks exist, regardless if private or public, the goal of the company becomes focused on increasingly profits instead of sustainability.

Not that non-traded companies don't want profits too. But the goal of "forever-increases" in profits will ultimately be destructive to a company as it will lead to lower quality, more exploitation, and intense focus on monopolizing their industry as that will be the only way to retain customers.

I think investing in companies is not really a bad thing. But it should be more like a set contract with an end date and/or amount.

More like a loan with interest. From a bank. Or how some contracts are made with movie actors and such.

A percentage of profits over a 10 year period or something.

Idk. There has to be a better way to do this.

The stock market has too much influence on the economy without bringing a benefit that surpasses the damage it does.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

The nature of non-traded and private stocks can be debated for days, especially when you get into the minutiae of stuff like mining stocks for example where it can represent the payout to workers, investors, and owners at the end of a season. But what has made itself evident is that the stock market should not be allowed to exist as it is. Maybe it can be devolved back into resource stocks but that's just getting into your contract loan/payout idea.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 4 points 11 hours ago

As long as companies primary purpose is to make value for the shareholders, this will continue. It is a race to the bottom. How do you fix that without massive upheaval for the people you are trying to help. I don’t know.

Remove shareholders from the equation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jtrek@startrek.website 28 points 13 hours ago

The problem is capitalism. Specifically, the consolidation of power in a small number of decision makers.

Break up the big companies. Stop letting them do mergers and acquisitions. You don't even have to do something radical like dismantling capitalism entirely.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 66 points 15 hours ago (12 children)

For me it’s a tale about loss of ownership in a dematerialised world. No one is going to cut a piece of my dining table because I own it and physically have it entirely at my side.

I’ll never own (my locally installed) Spotify nor the songs I listen to. Though for the later I have vinyl alternatives which no one is touching.

[–] khendron@piefed.ca 4 points 7 hours ago

In his Enshittification book, Cory referred to this as "technofeudalism" —essentially the return to the feudal society where there are owner elites and peasant subjects. The owners control everything, and the peasant have to rent access under the terms and conditions set by the owners. In the technofeudalism model, everybody (the peasants) have to subscribe to access anything from the corporations (the owner elites), with the corporations retaining all the power.

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You can have digital no problem. I have 25 year old mp3s. It just needs to be physically on your drives. You can pirate or purchase music today without issues. Spotify just scratched that laziness itch at one point in time and now you are locked in.

[–] caurvo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

For anyone who is interested in returning to simple mp3 players, check out the Snowsky range by Fiio.

The Echo Mini and soon to be released Echo Nano are pretty great little pieces that inhabit the offline music (and not your phone) space.

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

I have some cowon player around here but cannot find it anymore. That old thing supports 128gb via SD card.

What I would like is something modern, small player with a clip and Bluetooth for the buds.

Running could be so awesome but here we are running around with heavy phones. I guess some people use watches like that.

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 30 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

If you want a specific variety of a plant that's patented by, say, Monsanto, you don't own the seeds you get but rather their permission to plant them.

If you re-plant seeds in your own field produced by the crops of the previous year on that same field they can sue you and they will win (see Bowman v. Monsanto Co.)

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago

That's cool. Good thing I have a black light, and can modify the seeds the same way they do. Therefore, not the same seeds.

[–] grandma@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 hours ago

This is why I only seed torrents

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 17 points 14 hours ago

They'll also sue your neighbour if your plants spread seeds to their land.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] manxu@piefed.social 45 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

the term enshittification refers to the deliberate degradation of a service or product, particularly in the digital sphere

That's not exactly what it is, though. Enshittification is the deliberate degradation of a product for the purpose of extracting maximum revenue, where the product is progressively degraded up to the point where the consumer ditches it, but not exactly to it.

Without the tie to maximum revenue and measurement of consumer ability to cope, it's hard to understand why enshittification is so brutally frustrating.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 hours ago

Feels very fitting for The Guardian to downplay how the profit motive inherent in capitalism contributes to enshittification, even when Doctorow's original definition clearly includes it.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 34 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

Cory Doctorow describes the stages of enshittification as follows:

It’s a three stage process: First, platforms 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.

And for good measure he reminds us of the why and how things used to be better:

The pre-enshittification era wasn’t a time of better leadership. The executives weren’t better. They were constrained. Their worst impulses were checked by competition, regulation, self-help and worker power.

https://doctorow.medium.com/my-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-ea343342b9bc

[–] manxu@piefed.social 6 points 5 hours ago

You know, I agree with him that the pre-enshittification era wasn't a time of better leadership, but I don't think he got the reason for the change right. I think what we call Late Stage Capitalism comes from a single source: corporations don't give a rat's ass any longer if they exist in ten years. They are willing to toss reputation and long-term prospects out the window because the only metric that matters is quarterly numbers.

It's a thing I noticed on the Internet. I wondered why so many sites become big and then shoot themselves in the foot. We are on Lemmy (well, I am on Piefed) now, many of us from enshittified Reddit. But Reddit was the savior from an enshittified Digg, which was the savior from an enshittified Slashdot, etc. It figures that each iteration knew they were going to die making the choice they made, but also knew the quarter would be spectacular.

That worries me, because it's much easier to destroy something than to build it. If you go and look, the Internet is slowing down. It isn't being innovated, despite the need to do so. Instead, the big players see something grow, and they use their massive resources to buy it and kill it.

That's why I love open source: what is being built has long term plans. The main way that open source projects get enshittified is when they close source innovation and then follow the same trajectory as the big companies.

load more comments (2 replies)

The "for the purpose of extracting maximum revenue" is a bit redundant, though.

Everything a corporation does is for that purpose.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

That's still not it, though. Extracting maximum revenue is just the default state for all things in capitalism, so it is not a qualifier or distinction that is useful to identify enshitification.

Enshitification is a model specifically for platforms. It's not enshitification if it isn't a platform; that's just sparkling greed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 12 hours ago

“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,”

Ummm... It's happening constantly in the "analogue" world.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Here are the proposals: https://storage02.forbrukerradet.no/media/2026/02/2026-02-27-final-letter-to-eu-policymakers-2.pdf

  1. Rebalance power between service providers and consumers.

  2. Tackle dependency on Big Tech

  3. Double down on the enforcement of existing laws.

  4. Close the existing legal loopholes by adopting a strong Digital Fairness Act.

Nothing concrete. 3, 4 are mainly about enforcing GDPR. 2 is a job for public sector. All this is not really related to enshitification, it's more about independence from US tech.

That leaves us with 1, which they describe as "It should be possible and practical to switch to alternative service providers, or tweak services they already use to suit their needs and preferences".

Sounds great but what does it really mean? You can already switch to alternative provides. You don't have to use Google or Facebook. Are they suggesting I should be able to move my facebook account to some other site? Which one? Other than some sort of interoperability between messaging apps I don't really see how this would work.

Tweak the services? Are they going to mandate some preferences? I don't see what preferences would stop Instagram from being shitty.

I don't think trying to fix Big Tech is the right way to go. What tweaks would save Reddit for example? The issue was moderation and bots. What tweaks would fix Instagram?

I think the only alternative to current shitty internet is internet paid for by the users based on common protocols, self-hosting and federation. You want to post things on the internet? Host some open source service or pay someone else to host it for you. Most people will still prefer to pay corporations with their data and watch endless ads instead of paying directly to the service providers but at least there would be an alternative. And as Bit Tech enshittifies more and more people would jump to open source the way we're seeing with Windows and Linux. For me, what EU should be doing is pouring money into open source project and hosting open source services.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Other than some sort of interoperability between messaging apps I don’t really see how this would work.

IIRC, when telephones were in their infancy, you would only be able to contact people within your network. Imagine only being able to call other T mobile customers.

We did it back then, we can do it now. No more walled gardens.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 7 hours ago

Interoperability between messengers was already proposed, that's why I mentioned it. But other than that? Are they proposing TikTok, Instagram and Youtube Shorts to somehow exchange content and let users from one service interact with content from other service? Messages have very similar functionality but other services not necessarily. What kind of interoperability are we talking about?

load more comments
view more: next ›