this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
102 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43471 readers
899 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kabe@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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.

from Cory Doctorow's article on 'enshittification', which has become mandatory reading.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just to add, the concept of a bait and switch, where you lure a party in with something and then swap it out once they are committed, is not a new idea in the slightest. This is just a modernized, refined tech version.

Uber and Lyft are good examples. Drive out most of the competition with an aggressive early phase where you spend most of your capital to shore up a massively negative balance sheet. You are baiting the customers to you with very low prices.

Then once the competition is eliminated, you raise your prices on the captive consumers that rely on the service to recoup your costs and start making money.

If you, in a video game, have ever lured something in with ranged attacks and then switched to melee to kill it, by plan, you executed this same strategy.

Every single discounted trial period for a subscription is employing a riff on the same concept, where they hope you're too lazy to cancel.

Fools been falling for the bait and switch since ... oh dawn of civilization maybe? Awareness of it defeats it, people don't take bait when they know it's bait. It is not complicated though, and does not require complex understanding to grasp.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IIRC, it's in the article, but what makes enshitification so prevalent in tech is that it mostly involves networks, wherein part of the value of using the application comes from the presence and concentration of other users and providers on it (network effect). Even Amazon, Netflix, and Uber, are subject to that effect because they capture providers, not just users you will interact with. It's a somewhat uniq trait that really exacerbates the problem. This trend will probably continue untill interoperability is legislated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StankFlipper@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Your metaphor reminded me of killing vampires in Skyrim and it made me smile as I also feel a deep sorrow from the fact all major companies now are racing to the bottom while leaving their skidmarks on everything I used to love.

[–] kratoz29@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

This can't be true, Reddit said they cared about community /s

[–] cilantrillo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That was a good read, the thing is that it seems that all of a sudden a lot of tech companies are getting more and more anti-consumer. I mean it’s not only the whole Reddit and Twitter thing, now Youtube is getting more aggressive with adblocking, Stackoverflow and their mod protest, Google dropping support for the open source diaper and messaging apps on Android…

Many companies are getting more aggressive against their customers, and in the end it feels like the internet as it used to be is really dying, and we might end up with the whole “dead internet theory” becoming reality. I don’t know it just feels very depressing.

[–] kabe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you haven't already, I suggest reading Stop Talking to Each Other and Start Buying Things: Three Decades of Survival in the Desert of Social Media, a blog post by Catherynne M. Valent. (It's actually referenced in the article above.)

It's long, funny, and angry and damn, did it strike a chord with me. It was written in December, '22 so pre-Reddit meltdown but still very relevant to it.

Some highlights include:

Stop talking to each other and start buying things. Stop providing content for free and start paying us for the privilege. Stop shining sunlight on horrors and start advocating for more of them. Stop making communities and start weaponizing misinformation to benefit your betters... It’s the same. It’s always been the same. Stop benefitting from the internet, it’s not for you to enjoy, it’s for us to use to extract money from you. Stop finding beauty and connection in the world, loneliness is more profitable and easier to control.

Over and over again ... I’ve joined online communities, found so much to love there, made friends and created unique spaces that truly felt special, felt like places worth protecting. And they’ve all, eventually, died. For the same reasons and through the same means, though machinations came from a parade of different bad actors. It never really mattered who exactly killed and ate these little worlds. The details. It’s all the same cycle, the same beasts, the same dark hungers.

All ... gone. Dismantled for parts and sold off with zero understanding that the only thing of any value the site ever offered was the community, its content, its connection, its possibilities, its knowledge. And that can’t be sold with the office space and the codebase. These sites exist because of what we do there. But at any moment they can be sold out from under us, to no benefit or profit to the workers—yes, workers, goddammit—who built it into something other than a dot com address and a dusty login screen, yet to the great benefit and profit of those who, more often than not, use the money to make it more difficult for people to connect to and accept each other positively in the future.

It does end on a hopeful note, though.

Don’t ever stop talking to each other. It’s what the internet is really and truly for. Talk to each other and listen to each other. But don’t ever stop connecting. Be a prodigy of the new world. Stand up for the truth no matter how often they take our voices away and try to replace the idea of reality with fucking insane Lovecraftian shit. Don’t give up, don’t let them have this world.

Don’t get cynical. Don’t lose joy. Be us. Because us is what keeps the light on when the night comes closing in. Us doesn’t have a web address. We are wherever we gather. Mastodon, Substack, Patreon, Dreamwidth, AO3, Tumblr, Discord, even the ruins of Twitter, even Facebook and Instagram and Tiktok, god help us all. Even Diaryland.

It doesn’t matter. They’re just names. It doesn’t matter who owns them. Because we own ourselves and our words and the minute the jackals arrive is the same minute we put down the first new chairs in the next oasis. We make our place when we’re together. We make our magic when we connect, typing hands to typing hands.

Hello, world. Come in from the cold. This will be a good place. For awhile. And then we’ll make another one.

Stop buying things and start talking to each other. They’ve always known that was how they lose.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interest rates. Money isn't free anymore. It's still not super expensive but it's 5x more expensive than what it used to be since 2008.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

This is the answer. The age of free money is over and now we are seeing the effect; rampant inflation and high interest rates. The chickens come home to roost, always.

As a result, the burn rate and runway is starting to be factors in all businesses that aren’t making a profit.

[–] Exec@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago

Many companies are getting more aggressive against their customers, and in the end it feels like the internet as it used to be is really dying, and we might end up with the whole “dead internet theory” becoming reality. I don’t know it just feels very depressing.

With all the distributed social networks getting popular only among tech-literate people it feels like we're getting a reverse- Eternal September as well.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

2022-'23 really has been the year of enshitification

But I think it all started with Tumblr

[–] CavalierAlbatross@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

A few companies open the floodgates and takes a lot of the blame, flak, and focus (see: Netflix, Twitter). Other companies can seize the moment and ride the wave to potentially increase profits with less blowback than they might otherwise receive.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I had just copied the link to post this.

Read this for an actual answer.

[–] hawkwind@lemmy.management 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the exception is companies “too big to die.” They serve as the archangels of tech so ALL other goals lead to being bought by FAANG or dying.

[–] Exec@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Apparently neither Twitter nor Reddit was too big to fail.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Capitalism. Monetise everything no matter the cost to the users

[–] Nollij@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

To expand on this, it's not just capitalism - it's greed.

[–] silentdon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Potato potato

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

do you think this move will be good for their business?

[–] thrilly@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You ask on Lemmy…

[–] infotainment@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Exactly -- this is almost certainly bad for Reddit's business at this point. The problem here isn't necessarily capitalism so much as it is a egocentric CEO gone mad with power.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yea, I am not a capitalism enjoyer, but it's comical watching people insert their favorite pet politics as the sole reason for everything that's happening.

[–] SpaceToast@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t even think it’s a bad business decision.

Most people didn’t use 3rd party apps to begin with. I’d guess about 75% of the vocal minority who protested, will continue to use Reddit.

And a very small % of people will quit Reddit in favor of Lemmy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

But first be not as terrible to the users to attract them, then hope they're lazy enough to not go anywhere when you treat them terribly later while they squeeze value from them

[–] Skooshjones@vlemmy.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism. The incentive for any large, profit-motivated firm will always be to get the most people to pay as much as possible for as little as possible.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. Startup releases nice product
  2. Product is cheap or free
  3. Startup gains huge customer base while burning through money
  4. Investors are interested
  5. When initial money runs out, startup either asks for VC money or goes public
  6. Now investors want more growth
  7. Product goes through enshitification to extract more money out of customers
  8. Product loses customers as it loses its original charm

A tale as old as time

Enshittification and the raising of interest rates.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The interest rate hike in the USA by the federal government caused this. The companies can't borrow money for nearly free any more. All the entities who would have been offering these loans are now able to buy government bonds with a much more guaranteed return on investment. This means the corporations must squeeze more profit out of their products to pay back loans. There are an enormous amount of large money transactions like this used to run a large business. They do not operate on cash reserves all the time. They have assets and are always evolving to stay relevant. Most businesses have enormous asset holdings but limited liquidity.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This best answers the OPs question. We know why it happens in general, but this is why everything is doing it in overdrive right now.

I also think Spez is trying to rush into an IPO before the bottom truly drops out and the company folds.

[–] s_s@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  1. The growth of online advertising revenue slowed in 2022 for the first time since 2009.It still grew, just slower.

  2. Interest rates went up.

  3. With the collapse of crypto and Silicon Valley Bank (which was overleveraged in crypto), VC money isn't as free flowing. There really wasn't that much institutional money in crypto, but it's still a destablizing force and has had a ripple effect.

  4. AI is making more people aware of bots. This is related to point #1. A huge, unknown percentage of of FAANG revenue is selling online ads to bots instead of real eyeballs and once the word gets out, ad revenue will slow even more for any service depending on online ads (eg reddit).

[–] homesnatch@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One correction,, SVB was not over-leveraged in crypto, they had too many government bonds when the interest rates went up, devaluing them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Can't fight the class war if they have us either fighting the culture war, or not talking to each other intelligently.

[–] ira@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Interest rates had been historically low for a long time. Loans were cheap and venture capital was flowing freely. Tech companies could focus more on growing their market share with lots and lots of runway before they needed to become profitable.

Then during the pandemic, Congress gave a massive bailout to businesses. Inflation went skyrocketing, and the Fed had to raise interest rates to limit the damage.

Now money isn't flowing nearly as freely for tech companies. Loans are more expensive, and investors are more content to leave their money in high-yield bonds instead. Tech companies are pivoting to stop chasing market share and instead start taking their profits from their current market share, even if it means their market share stops growing.

[–] ComradePorkRoll@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Dr. Capitalism, or How I listened to stop worrying and love the dollar.

[–] ritswd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The tech markets have tightened.

To take Reddit’s case: so far, they could raise money at increasing valuation, and that’s how they’d fund their operations without having to have solid monetization. Now that all valuations are down including theirs, they can’t raise anything anymore, leaving them with four (non-exclusive) choices: running out of money soon and closing shop, exiting as fast as possible to get capital injection that way, letting go of most of their staff quickly in order to get leaner, or finding aggressive ways to monetize shortly.

I think Reddit’s monetization situation was grim enough that they’re making precipitated moves towards all the last 3 options, in order not to pick option 1 and die soon. For having been a part of it, a startup looking to exit will choose some very specific metrics that they’re choosing to market their exit on, and then they’ll make all their subsequent moves based on ruthlessly optimizing for those metrics alone. Since those metrics can be way different from the ones the company was using to raise money so far, that by itself can turn a company’s ethos on its head.

I think that’s what we’re seeing across the board in tech companies; except Twitter, which was a rare case of being driven by political calendar, and one person’s political goals. The acquisition agreement was signed just before the markets tightened, and in fact, Musk tried hard to wiggle himself out of it when the market started tightening, because that kind of wasteful ownership doesn’t make sense in the new climate. But this is really specific, and I believe the timing is a coincidence; unlike all the other ones.

[–] amoroso@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Because they realize they can get away with pretty much anything.

[–] LostRedditor@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably enshitification!

Look it up.

[–] johnthedoe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When a company goes public it becomes something that needs to “appeal to the public”. It’s like when a movie wants to appeal to everyone. By doing so it ends up appealing to no one in particular and it’s a successful meh movie.

Going public then you have a committee of board members making decisions. And who’s going to be on a board? Bunch of rich people who only care about making it the best company for the public. Effectively ditching everything that makes a company risky or unique.

Going public can also be good cos you’ll have public money to invest in new and better tech or systems or acquisitions. So the future they have in mind seem to not include a lot of us. It’s a direction that’ll strip anything unique about reddit and become a successful meh platform

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bishma@social.fossware.space 3 points 1 year ago

These are old era internet companies from when it was considered fiscally fine to be unprofitable as long as you were growing. Those days of the internet are over and the last few companies clinging to that model now have to plan their shift toward either profitability or being sold off for parts.

[–] NASAFan555@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Regarding Twitter, Elon seems to like trial and error, right? That's how SpaceX developed their rockets - by trying new things and testing them frequently, to see if they work.

So with Twitter I think he's just trying to see what he can get away with. And if he can't get away with something then he'll just roll it back.

As for Reddit, I guess they saw Twitter trying to squeeze more money from their platform and thought "let's try that too".

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Twitter had experimented and had a fair system in place through previous trial and error. Elon thought it wasn't good enough and then ran into the wall face-first thinking he was smarter than the average guy. Spoiler: he wasn't.

[–] randomguy2323@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Inflation , and late stage capitalism.

[–] notavote@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My idea is that they didn't/don't havse a choice but to try something.

They are probably running out of money and no one is giving it to them in this econimical climate.

Maybe profitability, or at least drastic measures, is the request by investors (similary how IMF is "blackmailing" countries when they give them loan).

It might also be an experiment, planned or accidental to male profit of social networks after 20 years of investing.

It is a gamble, but cut has to be made at some point.

[–] chirospasm@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Check out Cory Doctorow's post on a term he coined called enshittification. Good primer to some of the same patterns we are seeing.

I believe there is another comment that breaks down a supposition for Reddit's enshittificationw, too, in this thread.

[–] ghariksforge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Both Reddit and Twitter are losing a lot money. They want to squeeze their users for profit.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The companies want to make more money, and they have (what they think) a captive audience that will put up with the increase in costs. Pull off the bandaid all at once to maximize the probability that everyone will shrug and take it.

[–] fiasco@possumpat.io 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The other issue to consider is MBAs. Or at least the MBA way of thinking, that "caring about customers" actually means "leaving money on the table." The relentless search for "business efficiency," evaluated in pure accounting terms, can easily lead to destroying the core business due to a lack of understanding of how the core business shows up on a P&L statement.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›