Not very convincing IMO. The strategies laid out seem general and vague. The only thing I can gather is that they don't expect to reach market saturation for a while so enshittification is not an immediate threat which makes sense to me. Also quoting Google in that section is a bit ironic.
Good luck to them anyway. As a free tier user I hope they let me use their services. It has been immensely helpful to me.
It's fitting, since Google also once made a "don't be evil" vow.
The main reason people break the vow probably is that they have investors (not just the Carl Icahn types, but rank-and-file employees too). When the numbers for the next quarter stagnate too many times, the pressure apparently makes enshittification irresistible.
Taking VC money means its just a matter of time. If the ceo thinks he is in control, then he will be voted out.
We need software tools tracking all rich people now: who has sold out in the past, what they are working on now, who he has partnered with in the past, constantly pointing to and promoting underdog alternatives, all the dark patterns they implemented, all the lies they have said publicly, as much off the books recording of their batshit ideas as possible
I think its not very convincing because a lot of the same crowd that reads these blogs has a more nuance perspective on the issues.
Many make it about socialism or capitalism, as if that's the great issue, and indirectly it may be. There are enough blog posts just like this such that you have market saturation, and it doesn't really provide anything new.
Many of the people I know have a different take about what causes it that takes a less divisive path. Boom bust cycles.
Some simple questions like, what causes boom bust cycles? Why do essentially the same graphs show up in places like the S-adoption curve, and business growth curve, and ponzi's.
I think that's a more important take because it goes to the incentives driving a structure forward. You can do something about money-printing, you can't really do anything about people who can't change their beliefs regardless of the reality (on either side).
Open-source is a defense. There are other defenses that essentially rely on there always being competition.
However, these introduce another failure mode, abandonment and/or stagnation due to lack of resources. Ultimately, when money is running out, enshittification OR abandonment is inevitable, unless there's another viable way to get more money.
There is software which evaded that fate for decades. So maybe, instead of coming up with vague self-help style life hacks, we should look into this kind of software and derive from there what makes it robust against being taken away from its users.
It universally (but not exclusively)
1. is under a copyleft license
2. has no copyright assignment or CLA
3. has a large enough and diverse enough set contributors to make relicensing practically impossible
This is not bullet proof but it makes ensh@#$%! and vendor lock in very hard. Of course not every software that does not fulfill each of these criteria will end badly but the points the article puts forward will not really make a difference.
A good additional indicator is if the project is governed by a 501(c)(3) organization or the equivalent in other countries. A 501(c)(6) will not do.
Maybe tailscale thinks it can dodge enshittification by means of having the worst, most self-parodic name of all time ("tailscale"), which will lull VCs into a stupor? (I can remember it's a VPN and not a CDN only because the name is so bad it's memorable.)
Raising more money for what appears to be a working, useful product certainly doesn't inspire confidence, after all.
Not very convincing IMO. The strategies laid out seem general and vague. The only thing I can gather is that they don't expect to reach market saturation for a while so enshittification is not an immediate threat which makes sense to me. Also quoting Google in that section is a bit ironic.
Good luck to them anyway. As a free tier user I hope they let me use their services. It has been immensely helpful to me.
It's fitting, since Google also once made a "don't be evil" vow.
The main reason people break the vow probably is that they have investors (not just the Carl Icahn types, but rank-and-file employees too). When the numbers for the next quarter stagnate too many times, the pressure apparently makes enshittification irresistible.
Taking VC money means its just a matter of time. If the ceo thinks he is in control, then he will be voted out.
We need software tools tracking all rich people now: who has sold out in the past, what they are working on now, who he has partnered with in the past, constantly pointing to and promoting underdog alternatives, all the dark patterns they implemented, all the lies they have said publicly, as much off the books recording of their batshit ideas as possible
I think its not very convincing because a lot of the same crowd that reads these blogs has a more nuance perspective on the issues.
Many make it about socialism or capitalism, as if that's the great issue, and indirectly it may be. There are enough blog posts just like this such that you have market saturation, and it doesn't really provide anything new.
Many of the people I know have a different take about what causes it that takes a less divisive path. Boom bust cycles.
Some simple questions like, what causes boom bust cycles? Why do essentially the same graphs show up in places like the S-adoption curve, and business growth curve, and ponzi's.
I think that's a more important take because it goes to the incentives driving a structure forward. You can do something about money-printing, you can't really do anything about people who can't change their beliefs regardless of the reality (on either side).
Open-source is a defense. There are other defenses that essentially rely on there always being competition.
However, these introduce another failure mode, abandonment and/or stagnation due to lack of resources. Ultimately, when money is running out, enshittification OR abandonment is inevitable, unless there's another viable way to get more money.
The article talks about
"Defenses against ensh@#$%!".
There is software which evaded that fate for decades. So maybe, instead of coming up with vague self-help style life hacks, we should look into this kind of software and derive from there what makes it robust against being taken away from its users.
It universally (but not exclusively)
1. is under a copyleft license
2. has no copyright assignment or CLA
3. has a large enough and diverse enough set contributors to make relicensing practically impossible
This is not bullet proof but it makes ensh@#$%! and vendor lock in very hard. Of course not every software that does not fulfill each of these criteria will end badly but the points the article puts forward will not really make a difference.
A good additional indicator is if the project is governed by a 501(c)(3) organization or the equivalent in other countries. A 501(c)(6) will not do.
Can any companys/products be named that have gone down this vaguely described path that have actually avoided enshittification?
Maybe tailscale thinks it can dodge enshittification by means of having the worst, most self-parodic name of all time ("tailscale"), which will lull VCs into a stupor? (I can remember it's a VPN and not a CDN only because the name is so bad it's memorable.)
Raising more money for what appears to be a working, useful product certainly doesn't inspire confidence, after all.