this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
11 points (92.3% liked)

Enshittification

1548 readers
1 users here now

What is enshittification?

The phenomenon of online platforms gradually degrading the quality of their services, often by promoting advertisements and sponsored content, in order to increase profits. (Cory Doctorow, 2022, extracted from Wikitionary) source

The lifecycle of Big Internet

We discuss how predatory big tech platforms live and die by luring people in and then decaying for profit.

Embrace, extend and extinguish

We also discuss how naturally open technologies like the Fediverse can be susceptible to corporate takeovers, rugpulls and subsequent enshittification.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
hydra@lemmy.world
11
YouTube before vs. after massive corporate, profit-driven enshittification (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 2 months ago by Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/enshittification@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

One of the most annoying things YT does to me is recommend videos I've already watched. Like I get it, they are perfect for me, exactly the type of video I watch. That's why I've already seen them. And because I don't have the memory of a housefly, I actually remember what the video was about. If I wanted to watch it again, I would navigate to my history or the channel it's from and rewatch it there.

It makes absolutely no sense to me, why recommend videos I've already seen?

I use a browser plugin to hide those videos, but it doesn't fully work.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every. Fucking. Year. I swear, google just runs a query to remove view history past a certain age. Every. Fucking. Year, there comes a time where my ENTIRE FUCKING HOME PAGE basically resets to a year ago, because it forgot I watched every fucking video already.

Fuck Google. They're too lazy to do anything correct.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

FTFY: Fuck ~~Google~~ Alphabet. They're too ~~lazy~~ profitable to care to do anything correct.

[–] LuuTuyen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I remember when YouTube was used to be a very good video platform site under Chad Hurley

WHY DIDN'T LET NEAL MOHAN AND YOUTUBE EMPLOYEES FIX THE PLATFORM AND MAKE IT FAR MORE USABLE?

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I miss when people made stuff because they loved making stuff, not because they wanted to get rich.

Sort of like how girls used to post sexy photos of themselves because they wanted attention, now they do it to get rich.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I miss when people made stuff because they loved making stuff, not because they wanted to get rich.

They still do, but you'll never find it in the existing layout. The only stuff that bubbles to the surface is so heavily SEO engineered and hyper-monetized that it's got to be sixteen ads on the back of an infomercial in order to break even.

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hm? Feels like this forgot somet-[SPONSORED 1 OF 12]

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It seems like the current management is actively trying to find new ways to make the platform worse. It’s like a long train of bad decisions that most users somehow tolerate.

[–] laughing_hard@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree. YouTube is only running by the fact, that the content creators are only there. If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.

And why are content creators on YouTube? Because it offers the option to monetize as good video creation requires time and effort that you could put into a job otherwise - not only a single person's, mind you. The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn't a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification, probably even rightfully so - but you can't have a platform paying out the creators without getting anything from the users, be it a subscription fee or delivering ads.

I feel the criticism about this is somewhat misguided here, compared to things like operating systems - Windows has no needed to get worse, it had a sustainable business model, but corporate greed dictated changes for increased monetization. For YouTube, it was clear from the very beginning - or latest when Google bought it - that the business in that form isn't sustainable and that it only exists to accumulate users until they decide it's time to get an RoI.

Google has invested a shocking amount of money into the platform, both to make it attractive to (professional) content creators, but also on a technical front - the amount of data they store, process and deliver is unimaginable.

I'd love it to be different, but I totally understand why this is happening, and see it rather as a turn towards an honest business; and if alternatives ever have a chance, it's during times like these. Before, YouTube couldn't be defeated because of virtually unlimitedly deep pockets of Alphabet.

I don't think we'll see commercial rivals to this as the investment is very high, but maybe a surge of Peertube or similar comparable to what Mastodon and Lemmy are to their respective services.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn’t a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification,

It's true, but it's still enshittification because they offered one quality of service and then downgraded it to another level entirely. Many companies have done this and I'd even say that it's planned enshittification. You start out by providing something financially unsustainable, such as (relatively) ad-free high-quality video streaming. You do it so well that you drive everyone else out of business. THEN you either raise prices or force more ads and tracking.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Enshitification. Once they cornered the market and killed competition they tried to squeeze it. What you going to do, leave? Where?

Actually there's an app that tries to turn this around and remove their monopoly by combining multiple streaming platforms into one: https://grayjay.app/ the more people would use it the less they would be able to do this without consequences

[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hell no, I'm not spending money on "source-available" software made by a million dollar company. An application that doesn't even manage to put an open-source license on its source code is not worth my money. I'm happily donating to actual FOSS projects, but this isn't one. There are many free & open source alternatives like NewPipe (and forks like Tubular) and LibreTube, why use this source-available bullshit? It's fucking ridiculous, Louis Rossmann has spent so much time talking about and advocating for open source software, and then he heavily promotes a source-available product.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hey, he's not a developer. He doesn't know the nuances between ACTUAL FOSS and "source available", nor the VAST GULF of differences.

His heart is in the right place. ... but still, definitely go for real FOSS (not just OSS).

[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Louis Rossmann isn't a developer, but the company he works with (FUTO) was founded by an experienced software developer, and employs multiple devs for their projects like Grayjay, Futo VoiceInput, their android keyboard and other stuff. Not using a FOSS license is an intentional choice, which is why I'm not giving them my money. They should really stop their "source-available paid software license" bullshit, just make it truly FOSS and I'll happily donate.

And btw I'm pretty sure that Louis realizes the differences between source-available and FOSS, he's a smart man.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do I want to know what Elsagate is?

[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

If you have kids it's probably worth knowing about. If not, it might be better to avoid increasing your outrage