The basis of this article seems to be interpreting stage 1 of enshittification (“platform is good to users”) as being a “free rider”. However, that is incidental to users and not even necessarily known to them. Therefore it’s a flawed view to say users are trying to be a “free rider”. All the users know at that point is they are receiving a good deal.
I, a user on BlueSky or Threads or Facebook or Mastodon or whatever, have paid exactly zero of any currency to access it. Here, the user is almost definitionally a free-rider.
The platform may be paying to grow their business and advertise, essentially, or they may be using the customer as a source of data and audience as required to sell ads. So it’s quite wrong to look at it as if the user is acting entitled or taking advantage of someone.
If that right is restricted or they are expected to trade something for that right – even something ultimately immaterial and intangible, like seeing ads – they cry “enshittification” and push blame for this state of affairs onto the platform, then try and leave it for another platform that is willing to indulge free-riders… until their costs, too, become unsustainable.
This is all really so wrong as to be painful to read. As if Facebook doesn’t make money from people using their service?
I read this comment before clicking the link and thought, “wow, this article sounds like it’s going to be garbage.”
And it was.
To add to what you’re saying: this article is such a pile of misunderstandings and reductive thinking to to basically do anything to get the thesis “There is no better way than this! It’s so mean how these companies are unfairly criticized by the greedy, greedy, proletariat!!”
The basis of this article seems to be interpreting stage 1 of enshittification (“platform is good to users”) as being a “free rider”.
Indeed, while this can be true it doesn’t have to be true. It’s entirely possible to profit off of your users without being awful to them. Economics is not a zero-sum game, everyone can “win” from a transaction. Typically this happens because each party gets something from the other party that they value more than the other party does.
For example, I spent years on Reddit happily arguing with wrong people, deriving my “value” from just having fun interacting with folks about stuff. The server resources that Reddit expended supporting that were fairly trivial in dollar terms. Meanwhile Reddit earned a bunch of money by pretending to serve ads to my ad blocker and by selling information about me to AI trainers (or they would have if they’d thought of that before it was too late). None of that bothered me any, so they got something valuable to them from something nearly costless to me.
If Reddit had just stuck with that then everything would have been fine. Instead Reddit hired 2000 staff for some reason, requiring them to squeeze even more money out somehow, and the rest is history.
For example, I spent years on Reddit happily arguing with wrong people, deriving my “value” from just having fun interacting with folks about stuff. The server resources that Reddit expended supporting that were fairly trivial in dollar terms. […] Instead Reddit hired 2000 staff for some reason
They hired 2000 staff because they were running one of the most highly-trafficked websites on the Internet, with hundreds of millions of users, something which unsurprisingly takes quite a lot of people to administer and maintain. Were Reddit to not invest in people and resources to keep the website running at that scale, you would not be able to use it in the way you enjoy and it would have nowhere near as much utility to you.
This is the entire point of the article that you missed - there are a shit-ton of costs in running a massive community that have to come from somewhere. Your approach is “well I don’t think those costs are necessary”. But they are.
They also spent those 2000 staff implementing image hosting, video hosting (poorly), a live chat feature nobody wanted, maintaining a mobile app that was inferior to several apps being developed by lone independent coders, and a bunch of other nonsense unrelated to the core experience of Reddit. Rather than being the best Reddit the could be they tried to poorly mimic Facebook and Instagram and other such social media sites.
The thing that killed Reddit was the unfortunately extremely common drive that corporations feel to grow, grow, grow grow all the time every quarter. Always must have more subscribers, more features, more income streams, more products, new markets.
The basis of this article seems to be interpreting stage 1 of enshittification (“platform is good to users”) as being a “free rider”. However, that is incidental to users and not even necessarily known to them. Therefore it’s a flawed view to say users are trying to be a “free rider”. All the users know at that point is they are receiving a good deal.
The platform may be paying to grow their business and advertise, essentially, or they may be using the customer as a source of data and audience as required to sell ads. So it’s quite wrong to look at it as if the user is acting entitled or taking advantage of someone.
This is all really so wrong as to be painful to read. As if Facebook doesn’t make money from people using their service?
I read this comment before clicking the link and thought, “wow, this article sounds like it’s going to be garbage.”
And it was.
To add to what you’re saying: this article is such a pile of misunderstandings and reductive thinking to to basically do anything to get the thesis “There is no better way than this! It’s so mean how these companies are unfairly criticized by the greedy, greedy, proletariat!!”
Indeed, while this can be true it doesn’t have to be true. It’s entirely possible to profit off of your users without being awful to them. Economics is not a zero-sum game, everyone can “win” from a transaction. Typically this happens because each party gets something from the other party that they value more than the other party does.
For example, I spent years on Reddit happily arguing with wrong people, deriving my “value” from just having fun interacting with folks about stuff. The server resources that Reddit expended supporting that were fairly trivial in dollar terms. Meanwhile Reddit earned a bunch of money by pretending to serve ads to my ad blocker and by selling information about me to AI trainers (or they would have if they’d thought of that before it was too late). None of that bothered me any, so they got something valuable to them from something nearly costless to me.
If Reddit had just stuck with that then everything would have been fine. Instead Reddit hired 2000 staff for some reason, requiring them to squeeze even more money out somehow, and the rest is history.
They hired 2000 staff because they were running one of the most highly-trafficked websites on the Internet, with hundreds of millions of users, something which unsurprisingly takes quite a lot of people to administer and maintain. Were Reddit to not invest in people and resources to keep the website running at that scale, you would not be able to use it in the way you enjoy and it would have nowhere near as much utility to you.
This is the entire point of the article that you missed - there are a shit-ton of costs in running a massive community that have to come from somewhere. Your approach is “well I don’t think those costs are necessary”. But they are.
They also spent those 2000 staff implementing image hosting, video hosting (poorly), a live chat feature nobody wanted, maintaining a mobile app that was inferior to several apps being developed by lone independent coders, and a bunch of other nonsense unrelated to the core experience of Reddit. Rather than being the best Reddit the could be they tried to poorly mimic Facebook and Instagram and other such social media sites.
The thing that killed Reddit was the unfortunately extremely common drive that corporations feel to grow, grow, grow grow all the time every quarter. Always must have more subscribers, more features, more income streams, more products, new markets.