#Effective leadership in tech companies

[mehmetyildizmelbourne-blog]

Is Your Leadership Aligned or an Illusion? and How to Bridge the Strategy Gap?

Why Most CEOs Fail to Implement Real Strategic Principles and What You Can Do About It? As a long term researcher of technical leadership and excellent, one of my hobbies is to explore fresh voices and unique perspectives from thought leaders from different cultures. While browsing my reading feed today, I came across and article with a beautifully narrated voice.  The title of article…

[kuromi-hoemie]

feels so good being the person in charge of deciding whether our organization will use AI or not. I'm going to write an argument so strong... no we will not waste an ounce of our time and energy on what's essentially a bubble the IT industry Really wants to try forcing on people and is betting on/wanting so badly for it to take off. The real gut punch is at some point I'm going to compare it to NFTs lol

[soon-palestine]

𝗨.𝗦. 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗦 𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗛 𝗚𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗢 𝗔𝗕𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗦

Not guilty.

That's the verdict of a US federal appeals court in a case involving five tech companies accused of benefitting from child labour in Congolese mines. On 5th March, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made a 3-0 decision in favour of (Google’s parent company) Alphabet, Microsoft, Dell, Tesla and Apple Inc. in a case filed by 16 former Congolese child miners and their guardians.

The plaintiffs accused the companies of "deliberately obscuring" their dependence on child labour, in effect abetting the exploitation of many children to ensure steady supplies of cobalt. Some of the complainants were the guardians of children who��d been killed in cobalt-mining operations.

The court ruled that buying cobalt in the global supply chain did not amount to "participation in a venture," and there was no proof that the tech giants had anything more than a buyer-seller relationship with suppliers or had the power to stop the use of child labour.

Cobalt is in high demand as competition for market leadership in Electric Vehicle sales kicks into high gear. Nearly two-thirds of the world's cobalt is mined in DR Congo. The country has 2-million artisanal miners working under horrible conditions, according to DelveDatabase, an online database. Four critical minerals - copper, nickel, cobalt and lithium - will generate $16 trillion in the next 25 years, according to the IMF.

DR Congo's vast wealth is the key reason for the country's long history of exploitation and conflict - from Belgian King Leopold II running the country as his private estate to Western tech firms churning out high-end goods using Congolese minerals.

Help raise awareness of the exploitation of Congolese children by sharing this video widely.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The disenshittified internet starts with loyal "user agents"

I'm in TARTU, ESTONIA! Overcoming the Enshittocene (TOMORROW, May 8, 6PM, Prima Vista Literary Festival keynote, University of Tartu Library, Struwe 1). AI, copyright and creative workers' labor rights (May 10, 8AM: Science Fiction Research Association talk, Institute of Foreign Languages and Cultures building, Lossi 3, lobby). A talk for hackers on seizing the means of computation (May 10, 3PM, University of Tartu Delta Centre, Narva 18, room 1037).

There's one overwhelmingly common mistake that people make about enshittification: assuming that the contagion is the result of the Great Forces of History, or that it is the inevitable end-point of any kind of for-profit online world.

In other words, they class enshittification as an ideological phenomenon, rather than as a material phenomenon. Corporate leaders have always felt the impulse to enshittify their offerings, shifting value from end users, business customers and their own workers to their shareholders. The decades of largely enshittification-free online services were not the product of corporate leaders with better ideas or purer hearts. Those years were the result of constraints on the mediocre sociopaths who would trade our wellbeing and happiness for their own, constraints that forced them to act better than they do today, even if the were not any better:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Corporate leaders' moments of good leadership didn't come from morals, they came from fear. Fear that a competitor would take away a disgruntled customer or worker. Fear that a regulator would punish the company so severely that all gains from cheating would be wiped out. Fear that a rival technology – alternative clients, tracker blockers, third-party mods and plugins – would emerge that permanently severed the company's relationship with their customers. Fears that key workers in their impossible-to-replace workforce would leave for a job somewhere else rather than participate in the enshittification of the services they worked so hard to build:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/22/kargo-kult-kaptialism/#dont-buy-it

When those constraints melted away – thanks to decades of official tolerance for monopolies, which led to regulatory capture and victory over the tech workforce – the same mediocre sociopaths found themselves able to pursue their most enshittificatory impulses without fear.

The effects of this are all around us. In This Is Your Phone On Feminism, the great Maria Farrell describes how audiences at her lectures profess both love for their smartphones and mistrust for them. Farrell says, "We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship":

https://conversationalist.org/2019/09/13/feminism-explains-our-toxic-relationships-with-our-smartphones/

I (re)discovered this Farrell quote in a paper by Robin Berjon, who recently co-authored a magnificent paper with Farrell entitled "We Need to Rewild the Internet":

https://www.noemamag.com/we-need-to-rewild-the-internet/

The new Berjon paper is narrower in scope, but still packed with material examples of the way the internet goes wrong and how it can be put right. It's called "The Fiduciary Duties of User Agents":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3827421

In "Fiduciary Duties," Berjon focuses on the technical term "user agent," which is how web browsers are described in formal standards documents. This notion of a "user agent" is a holdover from a more civilized age, when technologists tried to figure out how to build a new digital space where technology served users.

A web browser that's a "user agent" is a comforting thought. An agent's job is to serve you and your interests. When you tell it to fetch a web-page, your agent should figure out how to get that page, make sense of the code that's embedded in, and render the page in a way that represents its best guess of how you'd like the page seen.

For example, the user agent might judge that you'd like it to block ads. More than half of all web users have installed ad-blockers, constituting the largest consumer boycott in human history:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

Your user agent might judge that the colors on the page are outside your visual range. Maybe you're colorblind, in which case, the user agent could shift the gamut of the colors away from the colors chosen by the page's creator and into a set that suits you better:

https://dankaminsky.com/dankam/

Or maybe you (like me) have a low-vision disability that makes low-contrast type difficult to impossible to read, and maybe the page's creator is a thoughtless dolt who's chosen light grey-on-white type, or maybe they've fallen prey to the absurd urban legend that not-quite-black type is somehow more legible than actual black type:

https://uxplanet.org/basicdesign-never-use-pure-black-in-typography-36138a3327a6

The user agent is loyal to you. Even when you want something the page's creator didn't consider – even when you want something the page's creator violently objects to – your user agent acts on your behalf and delivers your desires, as best as it can.

Now – as Berjon points out – you might not know exactly what you want. Like, you know that you want the privacy guarantees of TLS (the difference between "http" and "https") but not really understand the internal cryptographic mysteries involved. Your user agent might detect evidence of shenanigans indicating that your session isn't secure, and choose not to show you the web-page you requested.

This is only superficially paradoxical. Yes, you asked your browser for a web-page. Yes, the browser defied your request and declined to show you that page. But you also asked your browser to protect you from security defects, and your browser made a judgment call and decided that security trumped delivery of the page. No paradox needed.

But of course, the person who designed your user agent/browser can't anticipate all the ways this contradiction might arise. Like, maybe you're trying to access your own website, and you know that the security problem the browser has detected is the result of your own forgetful failure to renew your site's cryptographic certificate. At that point, you can tell your browser, "Thanks for having my back, pal, but actually this time it's fine. Stand down and show me that webpage."

That's your user agent serving you, too.

User agents can be well-designed or they can be poorly made. The fact that a user agent is designed to act in accord with your desires doesn't mean that it always will. A software agent, like a human agent, is not infallible.

However – and this is the key – if a user agent thwarts your desire due to a fault, that is fundamentally different from a user agent that thwarts your desires because it is designed to serve the interests of someone else, even when that is detrimental to your own interests.

A "faithless" user agent is utterly different from a "clumsy" user agent, and faithless user agents have become the norm. Indeed, as crude early internet clients progressed in sophistication, they grew increasingly treacherous. Most non-browser tools are designed for treachery.

A smart speaker or voice assistant routes all your requests through its manufacturer's servers and uses this to build a nonconsensual surveillance dossier on you. Smart speakers and voice assistants even secretly record your speech and route it to the manufacturer's subcontractors, whether or not you're explicitly interacting with them:

https://www.sciencealert.com/creepy-new-amazon-patent-would-mean-alexa-records-everything-you-say-from-now-on

By design, apps and in-app browsers seek to thwart your preferences regarding surveillance and tracking. An app will even try to figure out if you're using a VPN to obscure your location from its maker, and snitch you out with its guess about your true location.

Mobile phones assign persistent tracking IDs to their owners and transmit them without permission (to its credit, Apple recently switch to an opt-in system for transmitting these IDs) (but to its detriment, Apple offers no opt-out from its own tracking, and actively lies about the very existence of this tracking):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

An Android device running Chrome and sitting inert, with no user interaction, transmits location data to Google every five minutes. This is the "resting heartbeat" of surveillance for an Android device. Ask that device to do any work for you and its pulse quickens, until it is emitting a nearly continuous stream of information about your activities to Google:

https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/

These faithless user agents both reflect and enable enshittification. The locked-down nature of the hardware and operating systems for Android and Ios devices means that manufacturers – and their business partners – have an arsenal of legal weapons they can use to block anyone who gives you a tool to modify the device's behavior. These weapons are generically referred to as "IP rights" which are, broadly speaking, the right to control the conduct of a company's critics, customers and competitors:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

A canny tech company can design their products so that any modification that puts the user's interests above its shareholders is illegal, a violation of its copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, terms of service, nondisclosure, noncompete, most favored nation, or anticircumvention rights. Wrap your product in the right mix of IP, and its faithless betrayals acquire the force of law.

This is – in Jay Freeman's memorable phrase – "felony contempt of business model." While more than half of all web users have installed an ad-blocker, thus overriding the manufacturer's defaults to make their browser a more loyal agent, no app users have modified their apps with ad-blockers.

The first step of making such a blocker, reverse-engineering the app, creates criminal liability under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $500,000 fine. An app is just a web-page skinned in sufficient IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it (no wonder every company wants to coerce you into using its app, rather than its website).

If you know that increasing the invasiveness of the ads on your web-page could trigger mass installations of ad-blockers by your users, it becomes irrational and self-defeating to ramp up your ads' invasiveness. The possibility of interoperability acts as a constraint on tech bosses' impulse to enshittify their products.

The shift to platforms dominated by treacherous user agents – apps, mobile ecosystems, walled gardens – weakens or removes that constraint. As your ability to discipline your agent so that it serves you wanes, the temptation to turn your user agent against you grows, and enshittification follows.

This has been tacitly understood by technologists since the web's earliest days and has been reaffirmed even as enshittification increased. Berjon quotes extensively from "The Internet Is For End-Users," AKA Internet Architecture Board RFC 8890:

Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous cycle; it allows multiple implementations, allowing end users to switch between them with relatively low costs (…). This creates an incentive for implementers to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an opportunity to improve it.

And the W3C's Technical Architecture Group echoes these sentiments in "Web Platform Design Principles," which articulates a "Priority of Constituencies" that is supposed to be central to the W3C's mission:

User needs come before the needs of web page authors, which come before the needs of user agent implementors, which come before the needs of specification writers, which come before theoretical purity.

https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/

But the W3C's commitment to faithful agents is contingent on its own members' commitment to these principles. In 2017, the W3C finalized "EME," a standard for blocking mods that interact with streaming videos. Nominally aimed at preventing copyright infringement, EME also prevents users from choosing to add accessibility add-ons that beyond the ones the streaming service permits. These services may support closed captioning and additional narration of visual elements, but they block tools that adapt video for color-blind users or prevent strobe effects that trigger seizures in users with photosensitive epilepsy.

The fight over EME was the most contentious struggle in the W3C's history, in which the organization's leadership had to decide whether to honor the "priority of constituencies" and make a standard that allowed users to override manufacturers, or whether to facilitate the creation of faithless agents specifically designed to thwart users' desires on behalf of manufacturers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership

This fight was settled in favor of a handful of extremely large and powerful companies, over the objections of a broad collection of smaller firms, nonprofits representing users, academics and other parties agitating for a web built on faithful agents. This coincided with the W3C's operating budget becoming entirely dependent on the very large sums its largest corporate members paid.

W3C membership is on a sliding scale, based on a member's size. Nominally, the W3C is a one-member, one-vote organization, but when a highly concentrated collection of very high-value members flex their muscles, W3C leadership seemingly perceived an existential risk to the organization, and opted to sacrifice the faithfulness of user agents in service to the anti-user priorities of its largest members.

For W3C's largest corporate members, the fight was absolutely worth it. The W3C's EME standard transformed the web, making it impossible to ship a fully featured web-browser without securing permission – and a paid license – from one of the cartel of companies that dominate the internet. In effect, Big Tech used the W3C to secure the right to decide who would compete with them in future, and how:

https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-browsers/

Enshittification arises when the everyday mediocre sociopaths who run tech companies are freed from the constraints that act against them. When the web – and its browsers – were a big, contented, diverse, competitive space, it was harder for tech companies to collude to capture standards bodies like the W3C to secure even more dominance. As the web turned into Tom Eastman's "five giant websites filled with screenshots of text from the other four," that kind of collusion became much easier:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/18/cursed-are-the-sausagemakers/#how-the-parties-get-to-yes

In arguing for faithful agents, Berjon associates himself with the group of scholars, regulators and activists who call for user agents to serve as "information fiduciaries." Mostly, information fiduciaries come up in the context of user privacy, with the idea that entities that hold a user's data would have the obligation to put the user's interests ahead of their own. Think of a lawyer's fiduciary duty in respect of their clients, to give advice that reflects the client's best interests, even when that conflicts with the lawyer's own self-interest. For example, a lawyer who believes that settling a case is the best course of action for a client is required to tell them so, even if keeping the case going would generate more billings for the lawyer and their firm.

For a user agent to be faithful, it must be your fiduciary. It must put your interests ahead of the interests of the entity that made it or operates it. Browsers, email clients, and other internet software that served as a fiduciary would do things like automatically blocking tracking (which most email clients don't do, especially webmail clients made by companies like Google, who also sell advertising and tracking).

Berjon contemplates a legally mandated fiduciary duty, citing Lindsey Barrett's "Confiding in Con Men":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3354129

He describes a fiduciary duty as a remedy for the enforcement failures of EU's GDPR, a solidly written, and dismally enforced, privacy law. A legally backstopped duty for agents to be fiduciaries would also help us distinguish good and bad forms of "innovation" – innovation in ways of thwarting a user's will are always bad.

Now, the tech giants insist that they are already fiduciaries, and that when they thwart a user's request, that's more like blocking access to a page where the encryption has been compromised than like HAL9000's "I can't let you do that, Dave." For example, when Louis Barclay created "Unfollow Everything," he (and his enthusiastic users) found that automating the process of unfollowing every account on Facebook made their use of the service significantly better:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html

When Facebook shut the service down with blood-curdling legal threats, they insisted that they were simply protecting users from themselves. Sure, this browser automation tool – which just automatically clicked links on Facebook's own settings pages – seemed to do what the users wanted. But what if the user interface changed? What if so many users added this feature to Facebook without Facebook's permission that they overwhelmed Facebook's (presumably tiny and fragile) servers and crashed the system?

These arguments have lately resurfaced with Ethan Zuckerman and Knight First Amendment Institute's lawsuit to clarify that "Unfollow Everything 2.0" is legal and doesn't violate any of those "felony contempt of business model" laws:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/

Sure, Zuckerman seems like a good guy, but what if he makes a mistake and his automation tool does something you don't want? You, the Facebook user, are also a nice guy, but let's face it, you're also a naive dolt and you can't be trusted to make decisions for yourself. Those decisions can only be made by Facebook, whom we can rely upon to exercise its authority wisely.

Other versions of this argument surfaced in the debate over the EU's decision to mandate interoperability for end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging through the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would let you switch from, say, Whatsapp to Signal and still send messages to your Whatsapp contacts.

There are some good arguments that this could go horribly awry. If it is rushed, or internally sabotaged by the EU's state security services who loathe the privacy that comes from encrypted messaging, it could expose billions of people to serious risks.

But that's not the only argument that DMA opponents made: they also argued that even if interoperable messaging worked perfectly and had no security breaches, it would still be bad for users, because this would make it impossible for tech giants like Meta, Google and Apple to spy on message traffic (if not its content) and identify likely coordinated harassment campaigns. This is literally the identical argument the NSA made in support of its "metadata" mass-surveillance program: "Reading your messages might violate your privacy, but watching your messages doesn't."

This is obvious nonsense, so its proponents need an equally obviously intellectually dishonest way to defend it. When called on the absurdity of "protecting" users by spying on them against their will, they simply shake their heads and say, "You just can't understand the burdens of running a service with hundreds of millions or billions of users, and if I even tried to explain these issues to you, I would divulge secrets that I'm legally and ethically bound to keep. And even if I could tell you, you wouldn't understand, because anyone who doesn't work for a Big Tech company is a naive dolt who can't be trusted to understand how the world works (much like our users)."

Not coincidentally, this is also literally the same argument the NSA makes in support of mass surveillance, and there's a very useful name for it: scalesplaining.

Now, it's totally true that every one of us is capable of lapses in judgment that put us, and the people connected to us, at risk (my own parents gave their genome to the pseudoscience genetic surveillance company 23andme, which means they have my genome, too). A true information fiduciary shouldn't automatically deliver everything the user asks for. When the agent perceives that the user is about to put themselves in harm's way, it should throw up a roadblock and explain the risks to the user.

But the system should also let the user override it.

This is a contentious statement in information security circles. Users can be "socially engineered" (tricked), and even the most sophisticated users are vulnerable to this:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/05/cyber-dunning-kruger/#swiss-cheese-security

The only way to be certain a user won't be tricked into taking a course of action is to forbid that course of action under any circumstances. If there is any means by which a user can flip the "are you very sure?" circuit-breaker back on, then the user can be tricked into using that means.

This is absolutely true. As you read these words, all over the world, vulnerable people are being tricked into speaking the very specific set of directives that cause a suspicious bank-teller to authorize a transfer or cash withdrawal that will result in their life's savings being stolen by a scammer:

https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html

We keep making it harder for bank customers to make large transfers, but so long as it is possible to make such a transfer, the scammers have the means, motive and opportunity to discover how the process works, and they will go on to trick their victims into invoking that process.

Beyond a certain point, making it harder for bank depositors to harm themselves creates a world in which people who aren't being scammed find it nearly impossible to draw out a lot of cash for an emergency and where scam artists know exactly how to manage the trick. After all, non-scammers only rarely experience emergencies and thus have no opportunity to become practiced in navigating all the anti-fraud checks, while the fraudster gets to run through them several times per day, until they know them even better than the bank staff do.

This is broadly true of any system intended to control users at scale – beyond a certain point, additional security measures are trivially surmounted hurdles for dedicated bad actors and as nearly insurmountable hurdles for their victims:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/07/como-is-infosec/

At this point, we've had a couple of decades' worth of experience with technological "walled gardens" in which corporate executives get to override their users' decisions about how the system should work, even when that means reaching into the users' own computer and compelling it to thwart the user's desire. The record is inarguable: while companies often use those walls to lock bad guys out of the system, they also use the walls to lock their users in, so that they'll be easy pickings for the tech company that owns the system:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

This is neatly predicted by enshittification's theory of constraints: when a company can override your choices, it will be irresistibly tempted to do so for its own benefit, and to your detriment.

What's more, the mere possibility that you can override the way the system works acts as a disciplining force on corporate executives, forcing them to reckon with your priorities even when these are counter to their shareholders' interests. If Facebook is genuinely worried that an "Unfollow Everything" script will break its servers, it can solve that by giving users an unfollow everything button of its own design. But so long as Facebook can sue anyone who makes an "Unfollow Everything" tool, they have no reason to give their users such a button, because it would give them more control over their Facebook experience, including the controls needed to use Facebook less.

It's been more than 20 years since Seth Schoen and I got a demo of Microsoft's first "trusted computing" system, with its "remote attestations," which would let remote servers demand and receive accurate information about what kind of computer you were using and what software was running on it.

This could be beneficial to the user – you could send a "remote attestation" to a third party you trusted and ask, "Hey, do you think my computer is infected with malicious software?" Since the trusted computing system produced its report on your computer using a sealed, separate processor that the user couldn't directly interact with, any malicious code you were infected with would not be able to forge this attestation.

But this remote attestation feature could also be used to allow Microsoft to block you from opening a Word document with Libreoffice, Apple Pages, or Google Docs, or it could be used to allow a website to refuse to send you pages if you were running an ad-blocker. In other words, it could transform your information fiduciary into a faithless agent.

Seth proposed an answer to this: "owner override," a hardware switch that would allow you to force your computer to lie on your behalf, when that was beneficial to you, for example, by insisting that you were using Microsoft Word to open a document when you were really using Apple Pages:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021004125515/http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html

Seth wasn't naive. He knew that such a system could be exploited by scammers and used to harm users. But Seth calculated – correctly! – that the risks of having a key to let yourself out of the walled garden were less than being stuck in a walled garden where some corporate executive got to decide whether and when you could leave.

Tech executives never stopped questing after a way to turn your user agent from a fiduciary into a traitor. Last year, Google toyed with the idea of adding remote attestation to web browsers, which would let services refuse to interact with you if they thought you were using an ad blocker:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

The reasoning for this was incredible: by adding remote attestation to browsers, they'd be creating "feature parity" with apps – that is, they'd be making it as practical for your browser to betray you as it is for your apps to do so (note that this is the same justification that the W3C gave for creating EME, the treacherous user agent in your browser – "streaming services won't allow you to access movies with your browser unless your browser is as enshittifiable and authoritarian as an app").

Technologists who work for giant tech companies can come up with endless scalesplaining explanations for why their bosses, and not you, should decide how your computer works. They're wrong. Your computer should do what you tell it to do:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/your-computer-should-say-what-you-tell-it-say-1

These people can kid themselves that they're only taking away your power and handing it to their boss because they have your best interests at heart. As Upton Sinclair told us, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.

The only way to get a tech boss to consistently treat you well is to ensure that if they stop, you can quit. Anything less is a one-way ticket to enshittification.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[askagamedev]

a lot of people are probably asking you this, but if they aren't... do you have any clue what's going on with bioware? first moving swtor to another studio, which seems like it can be both a good or a bad thing, and now they're laying off 50 more people? studio veterans included?

this just seems like a very weird move to me, if not outright shitty. i want to believe in bioware, i love their games, no matter how flawed they are, but in the three years i've been familiar with them, things seem to be getting worse and worse. i know that DAD is in alpha so probably this layoff won't affect its quality too much, but again, that looks like a terrible move towards the employees themselves and the studio's more distant future.

Bioware is basically following the publisher mandate. In March of this year, EA declared that they were going to cut roughly 6% of their workforce (~800 layoffs) to lower costs, likely because they (like many tech companies) over-hired during the pandemic and need to correct the burn rate to appease their shareholders. These 50 devs being cut are Bioware's unfortunate sacrifice to the layoff declaration. As to whom and why, I suspect it is a combination of things.

Bioware probably had some kind of incubation team working on a secret new project that wasn't a sequel to an existing current franchise. I know that they would often have one or two such teams going at any given time - Anthem was one such project, as was the short-lived Shadow Realms project. New projects like that are much riskier than franchise sequels, so it is likely that the publisher decided that the risk moving forward was too high and they cancelled the experimental projects in favor of focusing on their established brands (Mass Effect and Dragon Age).

It is also likely that some of the long-term veterans are quite expensive to keep - they have high salaries and have been around long enough to collect on many of the big benefits EA offers, like sabbatical leave and the like. There's also the real possibility that there could be some bad blood or major creative differences between the current studio leadership and some of those veterans that were let go.

My heart goes out to those affected and I really do hope they land on their feet. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that employers never deserve any more loyalty than they're willing to give their employees. The employer will never choose an employee over its own survival, so we as workers should expect to do the same for ourselves. I never consider long tenure at an employer to be worth much when it comes to the business decisions, because I know how little it is worth when all is said and done. Business gonna business.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[gallifreyinstituteforlearning]

Why is Rassilon everywhere?

Why is Rassilon everywhere?

Ah, Rassilon! Praise be upon his mighty beautiful head! If you ever feel like you can’t swing a Dalek mutant without hitting something named after Rassilon, you’re definitely on Gallifrey.

Here's a few pointers to why Rassilon is so mighty:

🦸 The Founding Father

As one of the founding fathers of modern Time Lord society, his influence is in every aspect of Gallifreyan life. He's credited with many of Gallifrey's greatest advancements, including the discovery of time travel and the creation of the Eye of Harmony. Multiple powerful artefacts bear his name, like the Rod of Rassilon and the Ring of Rassilon, which I assure you aren't as dirty as they sound.

🐉 The Man, the Myth, the Legend

Rassilon's story is written into the very fabric of Gallifreyan mythology and legend. Stories of his heroic deeds, cunning strategies, and formidable powers are told to Time Tots from the moment they're capable of hero worship. It's said he battled great cosmic entities, outwitted ancient gods, and secured Gallifrey's place as the pinnacle of civilisation. What a guy.

📜 The Eternal Administrator

Even after his supposed demise, Rassilon's administrative policies and laws still guide the Time Lords. He wrote foundational texts that every budding Time Lord studies meticulously, and Rassilon's fingerprints are all over the rule book. It's like every bureaucratic form and procedural guideline has a little note from Rassilon saying, 'do it like this'.

🖥️ The Technological Genius

Rassilon's technological innovations are still in use millennia later. From TARDIS designs to the Matrix, his genius ensures that his presence is felt every time a Time Lord takes a trip through time or consults the grand repository of all Gallifreyan knowledge. Any piece of tech you can think of, Rassilon probably invented it.

🗳️ The Political Powerhouse

Politically, Rassilon’s legacy is unshakeable. His time as Lord President set the gold standard for Gallifreyan leadership. Subsequent leaders often find themselves compared to him, and many of the political structures and titles are relics of his era. He's even so generous as to return from the dead to lead Gallifrey in times of crisis.

🗿 The Cultural Icon

Culturally, Rassilon is the ultimate Gallifreyan icon. Festivals, holidays, and even everyday idioms are sprinkled with references to Rassilon. 'By Rassilon's beard!' is a common exclamation of surprise, while, 'What would Rassilon do?' is the go-to question for moral dilemmas, and the Horns of Rassilon is a hand sign you probably shouldn't do in polite company.

🧪 The Supreme Scientist

And let's not forget his contributions to Time Lord biology. Rassilon’s Imprimatur, a biochemical mark, allows Time Lords to safely pilot TARDISes, effectively bonding them to the fabric of time itself. There’s also the little matter of regeneration. This ability to cheat death every now and then is the cornerstone of Time Lord, and without Rassilon, it wouldn't be possible.

Some would dispute this was Rassilon's invention, but of course, they're liars.

🏫 So ...

Rassilon is everywhere because he's the ultimate Gallifreyan hero, lawmaker, inventor, politician, and cultural icon. His influence spans the practical, the mythical, and the everyday lives of Gallifreyan people, as well as all of you. Just remember—it's Rassilon's universe; you're just privileged to be living in it.

GIL adores Rassilon of course, in alignment with the views of our benefactors, the High Council. On a completely unrelated note, GIL also wishes the Celestial Intervention Agency a lovely day.

Related:

What's the structure of Gallifreyan DNA?: How their DNA is structured including the fourth strand, Rassilon’s Strand.

What is looming and how does it exist alongside natural reproduction?: Overview of looming and its place alongside natural reproduction in Gallifreyan society.

What does the Web of Time look like?: Overview on the Web of Time and its relevance.

Hope that helped! 😃

Any purple text is educated guesswork or theoretical. More content ... →📫Got a question? | 📚Complete list of Q+A and factoids →😆Jokes |🩻Biology |🗨️Language |🕰️Throwbacks |🤓Facts →🫀Gallifreyan Anatomy and Physiology Guide (pending) →⚕️Gallifreyan Emergency Medicine Guides →📝Source list (WIP) →📜Masterpost If you're finding your happy place in this part of the internet, feel free to buy a coffee to help keep our exhausted human conscious. She works full-time in medicine and is so very tired😴

[mariacallous]

September was a busy month for Russian influence operations—and for those tasked with disrupting them. News coverage of a series of U.S. government actions revealed Russia was using fake domains and personas, front media outlets, real media outlets acting as covert agents, and social media influencers to distort public conversation around the globe.

The spate of announcements by the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. State Department, as well as a public hearing featuring Big Tech leadership held by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, underlines the extent to which Russia remains focused on interfering in U.S. political discourse and undermining confidence in U.S. elections. This is not particularly surprising on its own, as covert influence operations are as old as politics. What the unsealed indictments from the Justice Department, the report by the State Department, and the committee hearing emphasize is that bots and trolls on social media are only part of the picture—and that no single platform or government agency can successfully tackle foreign influence on its own.

As researchers of adversarial abuse of the internet, we have tracked social media influence operations for years. One of us, Renée, was tapped by the Senate Select Committee in 2017 to examine data sets detailing the activity of the Internet Research Agency—the infamous troll farm in St. Petersburg—on Facebook, Google, and Twitter, now known as X. The trolls, who masqueraded as Americans ranging from Black Lives Matter activists to Texas secessionists, had taken the United States by surprise. But that campaign, which featured fake personas slinking into the online communities of ordinary Americans, was only part of Russia’s effort to manipulate U.S. political discourse. The committee subsequently requested an analysis of the social media activities of the GRU—Russian military intelligence—which had concurrently run a decidedly different set of tactics, including hack and leak operations that shifted media coverage in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Russian operatives also reportedly hacked into U.S. voter databases and voting machine vendors but did not go so far as to change actual votes.

Social media is an attractive tool for covert propagandists, who can quickly create fake accounts, tailor content for target audiences, and insert virtual interlopers into real online communities. There is little repercussion for getting caught. However, two presidential election cycles after the Russian Internet Agency first masqueraded as Americans on social media platforms, it is important to emphasize that running inauthentic covert networks on social media has always been only one part of a broader strategy—and sometimes, it has actually been the least effective part. Adversaries also use a range of other tools, from spear phishing campaigns to cyberattacks to other media channels for propaganda. In response to these full-spectrum campaigns, vigilance and response by U.S. tech platforms are necessary. But alone, that will not be enough. Multi-stakeholder action is required.

The first set of announcements by the Justice Department on Sept. 4 featured two distinct strategies. The first announcement, a seizure of 32 internet domains used by a Russia-linked operation known in the research community as “Doppelganger,” reiterates the interconnected nature of social media influence operations, which often create fake social media accounts and external websites whose content they share. Doppelganger got its name from its modus operandi: spoofs of existing media outlets. The actors behind it, Russian companies Social Design Agency and Structura, created fake news outlets that mirror real media properties (such as a website that looked like the Washington Post) and purported offshoots of real entities (such as the nonexistent CNN California). The websites host the content and steal logos, branding, and sometimes even the names of journalists from real outlets. The operation shares fake content from these domains on social media, often using redirect links so that when unwitting users click on a link, it redirects to a spoofed website. Users might not realize they are on a fake media property, and social media companies have to expend resources to continually search for redirect links that take little effort to generate. Indeed, Meta’s 2024 Q1 Adversarial Threat Report noted that the company’s teams are engaged in daily efforts to thwart Doppelganger activities. Some other social media companies and researchers use these signals, which Meta shares publicly, as leads for their own investigations.

The domains seized by the Justice Department are just a portion of the overall number of pages that Doppelganger has run. Most are garbage sites that get little traction, and most of the accounts linking to them have few followers. These efforts nonetheless require vigilance to ensure that they don’t manage to eventually grow an audience. And so, the platforms play whack-a-mole. Meta publishes lists of domains in threat-sharing reports, though not all social media companies act in response; some, like Telegram, take an avowedly hands-off approach to dealing with state propagandists, purportedly to avoid limiting political speech. X, which used to be among the most proactive and transparent in its dealings with state trolls, has not only significantly backed off curtailing inauthentic accounts, but also removed transparency labels denoting overt Russian propaganda accounts. In turn, recent leaks from Doppelganger show the Social Design Agency claiming that X is the “the only mass platform that could currently be utilized in the U.S.” At the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Sept. 18, Sen. Mark Warner called out several platforms (including X, TikTok, Telegram, and Discord) that “pride themselves of giving the proverbial middle finger to governments all around the world.” These differences in moderation policies and enforcement mean that propagandists can prioritize those platforms that do not have the desire or resources to disrupt their activities.

However, dealing with a committed adversary necessitates more than playing whack-a-mole with fake accounts and redirect links on social media. The Justice Department’s domain seizure was able to target the core of the operation: the fake websites themselves. This is not a question of true versus false content, but demonstrable fraud against existing media companies, and partisans across the aisle support disrupting these operations. Multi-stakeholder action can create far more impactful setbacks for Doppelganger, such as Google blocking Doppelganger domains from appearing on Google News, and government and hosting infrastructure forcing Doppelganger operatives to begin website development from scratch. Press coverage should also be careful not to exaggerate the impact of Russia’s efforts, since, as Thomas Rid recently described, the “biggest boost the Doppelganger campaigners got was from the West’s own anxious coverage of the project.”

A second set of announcements in September by the Justice Department and State Department highlighted a distinct strategy: the use of illicit finance to fund media properties and popular influencers spreading content deemed useful to Russia. An indictment unsealed by the Justice Department alleged that two employees from RT—an overt Russian state-affiliated media entity with foreign-facing outlets around the world—secretly funneled nearly $10 million into a Tennessee-based content company. The company acted as a front to recruit prominent right-wing American influencers to make videos and post them on social media. Two of the RT employees allegedly edited, posted, and “directed the posting” of hundreds of these videos.

Much of the content from the Tennessee company focused on divisive issues, like Russia’s war in Ukraine, and evergreen topics like illegal immigration and free speech. The influencers restated common right-wing opinions; the operators were not trying to make their procured talent introduce entirely new ideas, it seemed, but rather keep Russia’s preferred topics of conversation visibly present within social media discourse while nudging them just a bit further toward sensational extremes. In one example from the indictment, one of the RT employees asked an influencer to make a video speculating about whether an Islamic State-claimed massacre in Moscow might really have been perpetrated by Ukraine. The right-wing influencers themselves, who received sizeable sums of money and accrued millions of views on YouTube and other platforms, appear to have been unwitting and have not been charged with any wrongdoing.

This strategy of surreptitiously funding useful voices, which hearkens back to Soviet techniques to manipulate Western debates during the Cold War, leverages social media’s power players: authentic influencers with established audiences and a knack for engagement. Influence operations that create fake personas face two challenges: plausibility and resonance. Fake accounts pretending to be Americans periodically reveal themselves by botching slang or talking about irrelevant topics. They have a hard time growing a following. The influencers, by contrast, know what works, and they frequently get boosted by even more popular influencers aligned with their ideas. Musk, who has more than 190 million followers on X, reportedly engaged with content from the front media company at least 60 times.

Social media companies are not well suited to identify these more obscured forms of manipulation. The beneficiaries of Russian funding were real influencers, and their social media accounts do not violate platform authenticity policies. They are expressing opinions held by real Americans, even if they are Russia-aligned. Assuming the coordination of funding and topics did not take place on social media, the platforms likely lack insight into offline information that intelligence agencies or other entities collect. The violations are primarily external, as well—mainly the alleged conspiracy to commit money laundering and the alleged violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Here, too, a multi-stakeholder response is necessary: Open-source investigators, journalists, and the U.S. intelligence community can contribute by uncovering this illicit behavior, and the U.S. government can work with international partners to expose, and, where appropriate, impose sanctions and other legal remedies to deter future operations.

The degree to which these activities happen beyond social media—and beyond the awareness of the platform companies—was driven home in a Sept. 13 speech by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He highlighted other front media entities allegedly operated by RT, including some with a more global focus, such as African Stream and Berlin-based Red. According to the State Department, RT also operates online fundraising efforts for the Russian military and coordinates directly with the Russian government to interfere in elections, including the Moldovan presidential election later this month. These activities go far beyond the typical remit of overt state media, and likely explain why Meta and YouTube—neither of which had previously banned RT after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—responded to the news by banning the outlet and all of its subsidiary channels.

Our argument is not that the steps taken by social media companies to combat influence operations are unimportant or that the platforms cannot do better. When social media companies fail to combat influence operations, manipulators can grow their followings. Social media companies can and should continue to build integrity teams to tackle these abuses. But fake social media accounts are only one tool in a modern propagandist’s toolbox. Ensuring that U.S. public discourse is authentic—whether or not people like the specifics of what’s being said—is a challenge that requires many hands to fix.

[letsziv]

Lets Ziv: Innovating Product Design with a Woman-Owned Vision in USA

Introduction

When it comes to innovative solutions in the realm of product management, agencies play a crucial role in turning concepts into reality. Among these agencies, woman-owned businesses are carving a niche with their distinctive perspectives and strategies. Enter Lets Ziv, a groundbreaking company that’s redefining product design and management.

What is a Product Management Agency?

A product management agency bridges the gap between conceptual ideas and market-ready products. These agencies provide end-to-end services, including design, development, and strategy execution. By ensuring seamless collaboration across teams, they help businesses innovate efficiently and effectively.

The Importance of Woman-Owned Agencies

Woman Owned Product Design Agency bring diversity to the table, fostering inclusive solutions. Studies consistently show that diverse leadership teams outperform their counterparts in innovation and financial success. These agencies challenge industry norms and inspire change, proving that gender equity is not just ethical but also profitable.

Meet Lets Ziv: Woman-Owned Excellence

Founded with a passion for creativity and collaboration, Lets Ziv is a woman-owned product design agency dedicated to delivering exceptional results. Their mission? To empower businesses with innovative, user-friendly designs that resonate with audiences worldwide.

Core Services Offered by Lets Ziv

Product Design and Development: Lets Ziv crafts products that blend aesthetics with functionality.

Market Research and Strategy: By understanding consumer behavior, the agency tailors strategies to align with market trends.

Project Management Solutions: From ideation to launch, Lets Ziv ensures smooth project execution.

Unique Approach to Product Design

At Lets Ziv, the focus is always on the user. By leveraging advanced tools like AI and UX research, the agency creates products that not only meet but exceed user expectations.

Empowering Women in Product Management

Lets Ziv stands out as a beacon of empowerment. Through mentorship programs and partnerships, the agency nurtures aspiring women in tech, ensuring that talent knows no gender.

Why Choose Lets Ziv?

What sets Lets Ziv apart is their commitment to innovation and a client-first approach. Their tailored solutions ensure that every project is unique, impactful, and aligned with client goals.

Key Projects and Achievements

Lets Ziv has spearheaded numerous projects across industries, earning accolades for their designs and contributions to product innovation.

Challenges Faced by Woman-Owned Agencies

Despite their contributions, woman-owned agencies often face challenges such as bias and limited access to funding. Lets Ziv navigates these hurdles with resilience and creativity.

How Lets Ziv Overcomes Challenges

Through strategic planning, networking, and an unwavering commitment to quality, Lets Ziv continues to thrive, setting an example for others in the industry.

Sustainability in Product Management

Incorporating eco-friendly practices, Lets Ziv ensures that their designs are sustainable, proving that innovation can coexist with responsibility.

Future of Product Design Agencies

The future is bright for woman-owned product design agencies. With a growing emphasis on diversity and sustainability, companies like Lets Ziv are poised to lead the industry.

Collaborating with Lets Ziv

Partnering with Lets Ziv means embarking on a journey of innovation. Clients can expect transparent communication, expert guidance, and exceptional results.

Conclusion

Lets Ziv exemplifies the power of woman-owned businesses in transforming industries. With their innovative approach to product design, they are not just building products—they are shaping the future.

FAQs

What services does Lets Ziv offer? Lets Ziv specializes in product design, market research, and project management, providing end-to-end solutions for businesses.

Why choose a woman-owned agency like Lets Ziv? Woman-owned agencies bring unique perspectives and foster inclusive, innovative solutions, as demonstrated by Lets Ziv’s achievements.

How does Lets Ziv ensure sustainability? The agency integrates eco-friendly practices into its designs, focusing on long-term environmental and business value.

Can Lets Ziv handle projects in various industries? Yes, Lets Ziv has a diverse portfolio, showcasing their adaptability and expertise across multiple sectors.

What makes Lets Ziv unique? Lets Ziv stands out for its user-centric designs, innovative strategies, and commitment to empowering women in the tech industry.

[colonelrajyavardhanrathore]

Rajasthan’s Ambitious IT City Plan Near Gurugram: A Vision by Col Rajyavardhan Rathore

A Game-Changer for Rajasthan’s Tech Industry

Rajasthan’s planned IT city near Gurugram is not just a developmental project; it is a bold statement of intent. The initiative underscores the state’s ambition to position itself as a hub for innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship in northern India.

Why 50 km from Gurugram?

Strategic Location: Proximity to Gurugram, a major IT and corporate hub, ensures seamless connectivity and access to talent.

Enhanced Accessibility: With excellent road, rail, and proposed metro connectivity, the IT city will attract investments and workforce from across India.

Proximity to NCR: Being close to the National Capital Region (NCR) boosts the region’s appeal for both domestic and global investors.

Colonel Rajyavardhan Rathore: The Visionary Behind the Push

Colonel Rajyavardhan Rathore, known for his multifaceted leadership as a soldier, Olympic medalist, and parliamentarian, has been a vocal proponent of transforming Rajasthan into a modern economic hub. His unwavering commitment to Rajasthan’s development is reflected in his advocacy for this IT city.

Colonel Rathore’s Vision for the IT City

Creating Jobs: “The IT city will open up countless employment opportunities for the youth of Rajasthan and neighboring states,” he asserts.

Encouraging Startups: Col Rathore envisions the IT city as a launchpad for startups, enabling young entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive.

Building Smart Infrastructure: A focus on sustainable and world-class infrastructure will make the IT city a benchmark for others.

Key Features of the Proposed IT City

The IT city is being planned as a futuristic hub with state-of-the-art facilities to meet the demands of the modern tech world.

Smart Infrastructure

Green energy systems and sustainable architecture.

High-speed internet connectivity across the city.

Dedicated zones for IT parks, startups, and multinational corporations.

Education and Innovation Hubs

Establishment of training institutes and universities specializing in emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity.

Research and innovation centers to foster collaboration between academia and industry.

Lifestyle and Living

Modern residential areas with smart homes.

Recreational spaces, shopping centers, and healthcare facilities.

Boosting Employment and Entrepreneurship

The IT city is expected to be a massive employment generator. Col Rathore emphasized, “This project will bridge the gap between talent and opportunity, not just for Rajasthan but for the entire NCR region.”

Job Creation

Direct employment in IT and tech industries.

Indirect jobs in construction, retail, and hospitality.

Support for Startups

Incubators and funding programs for young entrepreneurs.

Co-working spaces and mentorship from industry leaders.

The Economic Ripple Effect

The IT city is anticipated to spur growth in multiple sectors, including real estate, transportation, and services. Rajasthan’s economy is set to benefit significantly from this large-scale development.

Increased Investments

Domestic and international IT companies are likely to invest, given the favorable policies and location.

Urban Development

Surrounding areas will see rapid urbanization, improving overall living standards.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

While the project is promising, challenges like land acquisition, environmental sustainability, and seamless integration with Gurugram’s ecosystem need attention. Col Rathore, however, remains confident, stating that the government is committed to addressing these issues with innovative solutions.

Conclusion: A Leap Toward Progress

The establishment of an IT city 50 kilometers from Gurugram is a visionary move that aligns with India’s ambition to become a global tech leader. Under the stewardship of leaders like Colonel Rajyavardhan Rathore, Rajasthan is poised to redefine its identity, not just as a historical and cultural state but as a modern hub for innovation and technology.

This project isn’t just about building an IT city — it’s about laying the foundation for a brighter future for Rajasthan’s youth and economy.

[elsa16744]

Unlocking Value Creation: How Private Equity Firms Benefit from Strategic Outsourcing 

Private equity firms prefer efficiency. That is why they adopt strategic outsourcing. Doing so ensures that private equity (PE) professionals have an advantageous position vital to unlocking value creation. In PE strategies, that value creation must encompass all portfolio companies. This post will explain how private equity firms benefit from strategic outsourcing. 

The improvement of operational efficiency translates to better profitability, and professional PE strategists recognize this. After all, similar enhancements boost the companies’ growth potential, making them attractive investments to future buyers. 

The Need for Private Equity Outsourcing 

PE firms can benefit from additional leverage and outsiders’ specialized expertise in investment research services. They can, for instance, successfully decrease costs while fostering more core competencies. Therefore, it is no wonder that faster business transformations powered by strategic outsourcing are popular. Eventually, portfolio firms will yield higher returns on investments, allowing for better exit options. 

How Can Strategic Outsourcing Benefit Private Equity Value Creation? 

1. Cost Efficiency and Operational Improvements 

One immediate advantage of embracing strategic outsourcing in PE activities is cost reduction. It not only saves tremendous expenses but also facilitates economies of scale. As a result, the efficiency of the processes skyrocketed. 

PE firms and strategists have been dealing with standardization challenges. However, professional private equity support teams sport some of the latest in tools and technology to address them. Similar to how an IT enterprise outsources operations to independent specialists, many cost overheads will undergo distribution between the private equity firms and their external associates.  

The sharing of liabilities may involve maintenance, tech upgrades, and cybersecurity considerations. That also entails more effective resource allocation to protect the interests of clients and support providers. 

Outsourcing further allows PE firms to initiate operational improvements rapidly. In this way, PE firms can leverage the expertise of third-party providers to acquire best practices or access the latest technology. 

2. Focus on Core Competencies 

In an industry with high competition, focusing on core competencies is critical for portfolio companies. Otherwise, they will struggle to grow and differentiate themselves. Strategic outsourcing gives a private equity company the ability to transfer some of the auxiliary tasks to others. Doing so helps secure more management bandwidth, which will be necessary to concentrate on integral business activities that deliver robust growth. 

This approach allows leadership teams to focus more time and effort on innovation. They can also enrich customer engagement and strategic initiatives by focusing more on process and vision alignment. Consequently, private equity firms will witness a faster business expansion trajectory. 

More agile business operations to become a stronger market player will further PE firms’ objectives, like seamlessly securing the most attractive acquisition deals. 

3. Quicker Workflow Transformations and Growth Initiatives 

PE firms want to take portfolio companies, focus on value creation, and exit the investments at better returns. In other words, rapid growth acceleration allows private equity firms to exit earlier or ensure better gains. Strategic outsourcing allows scaling capabilities and speeds up the changes, operational or structural, for agility. 

Therefore, if the firm wants to enter new geographies or experiment with alternative trade channels, PE outsourcing service providers could help. They will optimize the capital needed to conduct deal operations while supply chain and leadership evaluation become straightforward. 

Conclusion 

Modern private equity firms use strategic outsourcing as the most effective pathway for value creation across their portfolios. They have acknowledged that outsourcing can help reduce costs, create operational efficiency, and prioritize core practices. 

Besides, screening companies, entering deals, and exiting the market becomes easier as the related sharing of liabilities accelerates growth and resell strategy implementations. Given the hurdles in finding the best talent to plan, lead, and execute private equity transactions, the worth of strategic outsourcing can only be appreciated. 

[jupiterthroned]

public facing details of TranStar and the Yu family for roleplay reference

as they are very publicly well-known, here are all the factors your character is likely to know about. obviously there are variations on things like opinions and how much your muse pays attention to current events, but this is the general vibe.

TranStar:

a megacorp with hands in many different fields. most of their work is in scientific research, but they do have direct to consumer products like the TranStar Kitchens line of food products. (they may have also cured cancer? unclear.) they are very well known for their advancements in technology and medicine, as well as, y'know, the opulent golden skyscraper they built in space.

Neuromods, which allow human skills and abilities to be passed instantly between people without needing the years of training, are publicly known and advertised, but they're not accessible to common folk; the starting price for one Neuromod is $6M, and you have to have consultations with the sales team and the like before you can fly up to Talos I and have an authorized tech install one. as per the recording you find in game, TranStar has sold 8,000 Neuromods. the only side effects really known to the public are that 1. needles in the eye obviously hurt, and 2. there's often a short period of disorientation (which one worker described as a "Neuromod hangover") shortly after installation as the brain gets readjusted. long term effects are not known, but it's been a few years since they went to market and no major incidents so far, so they're generally seen as safe.

TranStar has predatory hiring practices. as noted by this book in Mooncrash, they use fancy compensation packages and the enticement of their benefits (come work on our luxury space station) to balance extraordinarily restrictive contracts. a major part of their compensation structure includes that workers are eligible for Neuromod installation, though it's also stated the company reserves the right to remove them upon event of termination. (the effects of Neuromod removal are not publicly known.)

TranStar has a "Volunteer" program, where death-row inmates are able to sign up to be human test subjects for certain experiments where they need live bodies in exchange for having their sentences commuted. they've put out feel good propaganda about the rehabilitation caused by the program, and nobody seems to have looked into it further.

the faces and names of most of the Board of Directors is unknown (which is ripe subject for conspiracy theorists), but William and Catherine Yu are the public faces of the company, with quotes from William often plastered on plaques and sculptures and the like within company property.

Alex:

firstborn son of William and Catherine, CEO and President of TranStar. they're pretty open about it being a "family company", apparently unaware that that's only charming up to a certain size of business and that beyond that size it's just called nepotism. while he doesn't have an exact canon age, estimating by Morgan's age means he was only mid-20s when he got the position as CEO.

much like his cousin Riley's bio states, however, while it was family that landed him the job, it was his abilities that allowed him to keep it. Alex is a brilliant scientist and shrewd businessman, and TranStar has seen great success under his leadership. he won't debate that he got the position from his family name, but he will argue that he has nonetheless earned it.

he gives many interviews, speeches, and press releases on behalf of the company, essentially acting as a spokesman. Alex is a charming man with good PR sense, and has so far managed to cultivate a very positive image of himself overall as the man who might be able to change humanity.

Morgan:

secondborn of William and Catherine, VP and Director of Research for TranStar. less public facing than Alex, but still definitely well known.

they're considered to be a prodigy, the former child genius who grows up and continues to earn acclaim. their big media coverage came more when they were younger, in those sorts of "meet the teenager who could change our understanding of how human brains work" type articles. they do still give press coverage in their work with TranStar, but generally with a PR representative alongside them; they're not quite as measured as Alex is with the whole self branding thing.

they are publicly out about being nonbinary (pronouns in bio and all), but aside from when they first came out to the public, they don't discuss it at all or advocate for trans issues, instead focusing entirely on their work.

[continuations]

Low Rung Tech Tribalism

Silicon Valley's tribal boosterism has been bad for tech and bad for the world.

I recently criticized Reddit for clamping down on third party clients. I pointed out that having raised a lot of money at a high valuation required the company to become more extractive in an attempt to produce a return for investors. Twitter had gone down the exact same path years earlier with bad results, where undermining the third party ecosystem ultimately resulted in lower growth and engagement for the network. This prompted an outburst from Paul Graham who called it a "diss" and adding that he "expected better from [me] in both the moral and intellectual departments."

Comments like the one by Paul are a perfect example of a low rung tribal approach to tech. In "What's Our Problem" Tim Urban introduces the concept of a vertical axis of debate which distinguishes between high rung (intellectual) and low rung (tribal) approaches. This axis is as important, if not more important, than the horizontal left versus right axis in politics or the entrepreneurship/markets versus government/regulation axis in tech. Progress ultimately depends on actually seeking the right answers and only the high rung approach does that.

Low rung tech boosterism again and again shows how tribal it is. There is a pervasive attitude of "you are either with us or you are against us." Criticism is called a "diss" and followed by a barely veiled insult. Paul has a long history of such low rung boosterism. This was true for criticism of other iconic companies such as Uber and Airbnb also. For example, at one point Paul tweeted that "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."

Now it is obviously true that some cities opposed Uber because of corruption / regulatory capture by the local taxi industry. At the same time there were and are valid reasons to regulate ride hailing apps, including congestion and safety. A statement such as Paul's doesn't invite a discussion, instead it serves to suppresses any criticism of Uber. After all, who wants to be seen as corrupt or being allied with corruption against something "obviously good"? Tellingly, Paul never replied to anyone who suggested that his statement was too extreme.

The net effect of this low rung tech tribalism is a sense that tech elites are insular and believe themselves to be above criticism, with no need to engage in debate. The latest example of this is Marc Andreessen's absolutist dismissal of any criticism or questions about the impacts of Artificial Intelligence on society. My tweet thread suggesting that Marc's arguments were overly broad and arrogant promptly earned me a block.

In this context I find myself frequently returning to Martin Gurri's excellent "Revolt of the Public." A key point that Gurri makes is that elites have done much to undermine their own credibility, a point also made in the earlier "Revolt of the Elites" by Christopher Lasch. When elites, who are obviously benefiting from a system, dismiss any criticism of that system as invalid or "Communist," they are abdicating their responsibility.

The cost of low rung tech boosterism isn't just a decline in public trust. It has also encouraged some founders' belief that they can be completely oblivious to the needs of their employees or their communities. If your investors and industry leaders tell you that you are doing great, no matter what, then clearly your employees or communities must be wrong and should be ignored. This has been directly harmful to the potential of these platforms, which in turn is bad for the world at large which is heavily influenced by what happens on these platforms.

If you want to rise to the moral obligations of leadership, then you need to find the intellectual capacity to engage with criticism. That is the high rung path to progress. It turns out to be a particularly hard path for people who are extremely financially successful as they often allow themselves to be surrounded by sycophants both IRL and online.

PS A valid criticism of my original tweet about Reddit was that I shouldn't have mentioned anything from a pitch meeting. And I agree with that.

[warningsine]

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-lay-off-more-than-10-its-staff-electrek-reports-2024-04-15/

BERLIN, April 15 (Reuters) - Tesla (TSLA.O), opens new tab is laying off more than 10% of its global workforce, an internal memo seen by Reuters on Monday shows, as it grapples with falling sales and an intensifying price war for electric vehicles (EVs).

"About every five years, we need to reorganize and streamline the company for the next phase of growth," CEO Elon Musk commented in a post on X. Two senior leaders, battery development chief Drew Baglino and vice president for public policy Rohan Patel, also announced their departures, drawing posts of thanks from Musk although some investors were concerned.

Musk last announced a round of job cuts in 2022, after telling executives he had a "super bad feeling" about the economy. Still, Tesla headcount has risen from around 100,000 in late 2021 to over 140,000 in late 2023, according to filings with U.S. regulators.

Baglino was a Tesla veteran and one of four members, along with Musk, of the leadership team listed on the company's investor relations website.

Scott Acheychek, CEO of Rex Shares - which manages ETFs with high exposure to Tesla stock - described the headcount reductions as strategic, but Michael Ashley Schulman, chief investment officer at Running Point Capital Advisors, deemed the departures of the senior executives as "the larger negative signal today" that Tesla's growth was in trouble.

Less than a year ago, Tesla's chief financial officer, Zach Kirkhorn, left the company, fueling concerns about succession planning.

Tesla shares closed 5.6% lower at $161.48 on Monday. Shares of EV makers Rivian Automotive (RIVN.O), opens new tab, Lucid Group (LCID.O), opens new tab and VinFast Auto also dropped between 2.4% and 9.4%.

"As we prepare the company for our next phase of growth, it is extremely important to look at every aspect of the company for cost reductions and increasing productivity," Musk said in the memo sent to all staff.

"As part of this effort, we have done a thorough review of the organization and made the difficult decision to reduce our headcount by more than 10% globally," it said.

Reuters saw an email sent to at least three U.S. employees notifying them their dismissal was effective immediately.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

MASS MARKET

The layoffs follow an exclusive Reuters report on April 5 that Tesla had cancelled a long-promised inexpensive car, expected to cost $25,000, that investors have been counting on to drive mass-market growth. Musk had said the car, known as the Model 2, would start production in late 2025.

Shortly after the story published, Musk posted "Reuters is lying" on his social media site X, without detailing any inaccuracies. He has not commented on the car since, leaving investors and analysts to speculate on its future.

Tech publication Electrek, which first reported, opens new tab the latest job cuts, said on Monday that the inexpensive car project had been defunded and that many people working on it had been laid off.

Reuters also reported on April 5 that Tesla would shift its focus to self-driving robotaxis built on the same small-car platform. Musk posted on X that evening: "Tesla Robotaxi unveil on 8/8," with no further details.

Tesla could be years away from releasing a fully autonomous vehicle with regulatory approval, according to experts in self-driving cars and regulation.

Tesla shares have fallen about 33% so far this year, underperforming legacy automakers such as Toyota Motor (7203.T), opens new tab and General Motors (GM.N), opens new tab, whose shares have rallied 45% and about 20% respectively.

Energy major BP (BP.L), opens new tab has also cut more than a tenth of the workforce in its EV charging business after a bet on rapid growth in commercial EV fleets did not pay off, Reuters reported on Monday, underscoring the broader impact of slowing EV demand.

WORKS COUNCIL

A newly elected works council of labour representatives at Tesla's German plant was not informed or consulted ahead of the announcement to staff, said Dirk Schulze, head of the IG Metall union in the region.

"It is the legal obligation of management not only to inform the works council but to consult with it on how jobs can be secured," Schulze said.

Analysts from Gartner and Hargreaves Lansdown said the cuts were a sign of cost pressures as the carmaker invests in new models and artificial intelligence.

Tesla reported this month that its global vehicle deliveries in the first quarter fell for the first time in nearly four years, as price cuts failed to stir demand.

The EV maker has been slow to refresh its aging models as high interest rates have sapped consumer appetite for big-ticket items, while rivals in China, the world's largest auto market, are rolling out cheaper models.

China's BYD (002594.SZ), opens new tab briefly overtook the U.S. company as the world's largest EV maker in the fourth quarter, and new entrant Xiaomi (1810.HK), opens new tab has garnered substantial positive press.

Tesla is gearing up to start sales in India, the world's third-largest auto market, this year, producing cars in Germany for export to India and scouting locations for showrooms and service hubs in major cities.

Tesla recorded a gross profit margin of 17.6% in the fourth quarter, the lowest in more than four years.

[monkeywiki]

HOW TO REFORMAT YOUR RESUME TO MAKE IT EASY FOR RECRUITERS TO SEE IT

Your name, email, contact should be at the top.

Poop Poop | phone number | Email

include 3 REFERENCES of people you trust, teachers, colleagues, even online friends, anyone who would vouch for you, and format.

References 

Blah Blah | College Of Poop and Farts | Lab Tech balhablah@gmail.com 3842348394

Blah Blah | College Of Poop and Farts | Lab Tech balhablah@gmail.com 3842348394

Blah Blah | College Of Poop and Farts | Lab Tech balhablah@gmail.com 3842348394

Education (I recommend putting this next, OR make it the very last thing on your resume.)

Early Graduate Diploma – EebyHS | 2018

Excelled in the Eeby High School Proficiency Exam earning a certificate of diploma prior to most peers in the graduate class.

Experience (notice putting about 2-3 is optimal and fine, if you have none whatsoever, consider volunteer efforts, charity events when you were younger, art clubs you hosted, and consider framing them as Leadership initiatives. Done art commissions? Handling confidential client information and transactions. Pet sitting, helping someone with their homework, babysitting, lawn mowing, anything can be re-framed into buzzword friendly search terms that show you have the diligence and willingness to learn more.)

Job title | Company | Location | Year

Brand Ambassador | Eeby Deeby Programs | Or, Bo | 2019

Utilized PC technology to quickhand troubleshoot technical issues, lead IT support

Camera and photography operations, lead marketing, staging, lighting and merchandising.

IOS maintenance 

POS operation lead, customer & client assurance, tendering sales

TIP: What did this company advocate for? What were your goals and what did your work accomplish? 

Certified Onboarder | Ourga Bourga | Port, Borba | 2018

Coordinates onboarding & training for new hires to successfully transition into their new roles accordingly and within a timely manner.

Communicates effectively to responsibly manage and maintain workflow between the front of house and kitchen.

Leading to ensure customer satisfaction by managing staff’s ticket fulfillment to company standards and to order.

Go to indeed, create a resume and do their skill assessment tests if you want to add more buff to this, however, first you need to look inward. Have you been online your whole life? Welcome to the first step! your next thing on your resume is your :

Skills

(do a wpm test and put your result)

Windows OS & IOS technology

Microsoft technology

Proficient in Word, Excel, Powerpoint 

POS terminals & technology (better way of saying "i was a cashier")

IT support (same thing)

Experience in supervisory, management and training (ever run your own discord? ever recruited for a zine? hosted a re-animated project? No need to say it straight.)

Proficient in marketing, merchandising & staging (AKA: setting up store displays, making sure burgers look Like They're Suppose to, making store aisles clean and products are pulled forward)

(also might help to use indeed, do their resume and their proficiency tests and include those on your resume)

Proficient in OSHA and FDA regulations in food safety control environments (aka i worked foodservice, i have cleaned toilets)

Quality assurance (literally everything ever)

Bonus points if you've worked any place that has access to cleaning products, you can say the following:

Proficient in Ecolab standard protocols.

It's important to consider that recruiters are sifting through hundreds of resumes.

short-term your experience with simple, but BUZZWORD friendly language. Why?

Not only do recruiters want to pick up what you can do Likely within the first few seconds of viewing your application, your application is more likely to be seen by websites like indeed if you use keywords and buzzwords that make your resume relevant to the website's search algorithm.

Sentences are not important. Experience is, and you likely have more than you give yourself credit for. good luck

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Tech workers and gig workers need each other

Catch me in Miami! I'll be at Books and Books in Coral Gables on Jan 22 at 8PM.

We're living in the enshittocene, in which the forces of enshittification are turning everything from our cars to our streaming services to our dishwashers into thoroughly enshittifified piles of shit. Call it the Great Enshittening:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

How did we arrive at this juncture? Is it the end of the zero rate interest policy? Was it that the companies that formerly made useful things that we valued underwent a change in leadership that drove them to make things worse? Is Mercury in retrograde?

None of the above. There have been many junctures in which investors demanded higher returns from firms but were not able to force them to dramatically worsen their products. Moreover, the leaders now presiding over the rapid unscheduled disassembly of once-useful products are the same people who oversaw their golden age. As to Mercury? Well, I'm a Cancer, and as everyone knows, Cancers don't believe in astrology.

The Great Enshittening isn't precipitated by a change in how greedy and callous corporate leaders are. Rather, the change is in what those greedy, callous corporate leaders can get away with.

Capitalists hate capitalism. For a corporate executive, the fact that you have to make good things, please your customers, pay your workers, and beat the competition are all bugs, not features. The best business is one in which people simply pay you money without your having to do anything or worry that someday they'll stop. UBI for the investor class, in other words.

Douglas Rushkoff calls this "going meta." Don't sell things, provide a platform where people sell things. Don't provide a platform, invest in the platform. Don't invest in the platform, buy options on the platform. Don't buy options, buy derivatives of options.

A more precise analysis comes from economist Yanis Varoufakis, who calls this technofeudalism. Varoufakis draws our attention to the distinction between profits and rents. Profit is the income a capitalist receives from mobilizing workers to do something productive and then skimming off the surplus created by their labor.

By contrast, rent is income a feudalist derives from simply owning something that a capitalist or a worker needs in order to be productive. The entrepreneur who opens a coffee shop earns profits by creaming off the surplus value created by the baristas. The rentier who owns the building the coffee shop rents gets money simply for owning the building.

The coffee shop owner can never rest. At any moment, another coffee shop can open down the street and lure away their customers and their baristas. When that happens, the coffee shop goes bust and the owner is ruined. But not the landlord! After the coffee shop goes bust, the landlord's asset is more valuable – an empty storefront just down the street from the hottest coffee shop in town.

Capitalists hate capitalism. Faced with a choice of retaining their workers by paying them a fair wage and treating them well, or by saddling them with noncompetes that make it impossible to work for anyone else in the same field, and obligations to repay tens of thousands of dollars for "training" if they quit, bosses will take the latter every time. Go meta, baby.

Same for competition. Faced with the choice of competing to win the most customers with the best products, or merging so that customers have nowhere else to go, even the bitterest of rivals find it remarkably easy to intermarry until our corporations landscape is so interbred the dominant firms all have Habsburg jaws. Think: Facebook-Instagram. Disney-Fox. Microsoft-Activision:

https://locusmag.com/2021/07/cory-doctorow-tech-monopolies-and-the-insufficient-necessity-of-interoperability/

Enshittification has complex underlying dynamics and a reliable procession of stages, but the effect is quite straightforward: things are enshittified when they become worse for the people who use them and the suppliers who makes them, but nevertheless, the users keep using and the suppliers keep supplying.

There are four forces that stand in the way of enshittification, and as each of these forces grows weaker, enshittification proliferates.

The first and most important of these constraints is competition. Capitalists claim to love competition because it keeps firms sharp: they must constantly find ways to improve products and cut costs or be swept away by a superior alternative. There's a degree of truth here, but that's not the whole story.

For one thing, competition can "improve" things that we would rather see abolished. Critics of the GDPR, the EU's landmark privacy law, often point to the devastation that enforcing privacy law had on the European ad-tech industry, driving small firms out of business. But these firms were the most egregious privacy offenders, because they had the least to lose, lacking the dominant position of US-based Big Tech surveillance companies.

Having the least to lose, they were the most reckless with their privacy invasions – but they were also the least equipped to pay expensive enablers from giant corporate law firms to hold off European enforcers, and so they were obliterated. The resulting lack of competition is fine, as far as privacy goes: we don't want competition in the field of "who is most efficient at violating our human rights":

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/fighting-floc-and-fighting-monopoly-are-fully-compatible

But there's another benefit to competition: disorganization. A sector with hundreds of medium-sized, competing companies is a squabbling mob, incapable of agreeing on the site for an annual meeting. An industry dominated by a handful of firms is a cartel, handily capable of presenting a unified front to policy makers, and their commercial coziness provides them with vast war-chests they can use to suborn governments and capture their regulators:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/regulatory-capture/

Competition is the first constraint. When there's competition, corporate managers fear that you will respond to enshittification by defecting to a rival, costing them money. They don't care about your satisfaction, but they do care about your money, and competition hitches their ability to satisfy you to their ability to get paid by you.

Competition has been circling the drain for 40 years, as the "consumer welfare" theory of antitrust, hatched by Reagan's court sorcerers at the University of Chicago School of Economics, took hold. This theory insists that monopolies are evidence of "efficiency" – if everyone shops at one store, that's evidence that it's the best store, not evidence that they're cheating.

For 40 years, we've allowed companies to violate antitrust law by merging with major competitors, acquiring fledgling rivals, and using investor cash to sell below cost so that no one else can enter the market. This has produced the inbred industrial hulks of today, with five or fewer firms dominating everything from eyeglasses to banking, sea freight to professional wrestling:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

The endless and continuous weakening of competition has emboldened corporate enshittifiers, who operate on the logic of Lily Tomlin in her role as an AT&T spokeswoman: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company":

https://vimeo.com/355556831

But the drawdown of competition has also enabled regulatory capture, by converting cutthroat adversaries to kissing cousins. These companies have convinced their regulators not to enforce privacy, consumer protection or labor laws, provided that the gross violations of these laws are accomplished via apps.

This is where tech exceptionalism is warranted: while the bosses that run these companies aren't any nobler – or more wicked – than the Robber Barons of yore, they are equipped with a digital back-end for their businesses that let them change the rules of the game from moment to moment.

Think of labor law: as Veena Dubal writes, gig-work companies practice algorithmic wage discrimination, turning your paycheck into a slot machine that pays out more when you are more selective about which jobs you take, and which then docks your pay by tiny increments as you become less discriminating about answering the app's call:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

This is a plain violation of labor law, but the fiction that gig workers are contractors, combined with the opacity and speed of the wage discrimination back-end, lets the companies get away with it.

But the monsters who hatched this scam are no worse than their forebears, nor are they any smarter. Any black-hearted coal-boss memorialized in a Tennessee Ernie Ford song would have gladly practiced algorithmic wage discrimination – but there just weren't enough green-eyeshade accountants in the back office to change the payout from second to second.

I call this "twiddling" – turning the knobs on the back end to continuously adjust the business logic that the firm operates on:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Twiddling is everywhere, and it is only possible because "it's not a crime if we use an app" has been accepted by (captured) regulators. Think of Amazon's "pricing paradox," where deceptive search results – which Amazon makes $38b/year on – allow the company to offer lower prices, but charge higher ones:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

The first constraint on enshittification is competition – the fear that you'll lose money when a disgusted customer take their business elsewhere. The second constraint is regulation – the fear that a regulator's punishment will eat up all the expected gains from an enshittificatory move, or even exceed those gains, leading to a net loss.

But the less competition there is in a sector, the easier it is for the remaining companies to capture their regulators. Say goodbye to that second constraint.

But there's another constraint – another one that's unique to technology, and genuinely exceptional. That's self-help. Digital technology is infinitely flexible, which is why managers can twiddle the business logic and change the rules on a dime.

But it's a double-edged sword. Users can twiddle back. The universal nature of digital products means it's always technically possible to disenshittify the enshittified products in your world. Mercedes wants to charge you rent on your accelerator pedal via a monthly subscription? Just mod the car by toggling the "subscription paid" bit and get the accelerator for free:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

HP tricks you into installing a "security update" that sneakily disables your printer's ability to recognize and use third-party ink? Just roll back the operating system and you won't be forced to spend $10,000/gallon to print out your boarding passes and shopping lists:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Self-help – AKA "adversarial interoperability" – isn't just a way to override the greedy choices of corporate sadists. It's a way to hold those sadists in check. It's a constraint.

Imagine a boardroom where someone says, "I calculate that if we make our ads 25% more invasive and obnoxious, we can eke out 2% more in ad-revenue." If you think of a business as a transhuman colony organism that exists to maximize shareholder value, this is a no-brainer.

But now consider the rejoinder: "If we make our ads 25% more obnoxious, then 50% of our users will be motivated to type, 'how do I block ads?' into a search engine. When that happens, we don't merely lose out on the expected 2% of additional revenue – our income from those users falls to zero, forever."

Self-help is the third constraint on enshittification. But when competition fails, and regulatory capture ensues, companies don't just gain the ability to flout the law – they get to wield the law, too.

Tech firms have cultivated a thicket of laws, rules and regulations that make self-help measures very illegal. This thicket is better known as "IP," a term that is best understood as meaning "any policy that lets me control the conduct of my competitors, my customers and my critics":

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

To put an ad-blocker in an app, you have to reverse-engineer it. To do that, you'll have to decrypt and decompile it. That step is a felony under Section 1201 of the DMCA, carrying a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine. Beyond that, ad-blocking an app would give rise to liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (a law inspired by the movie Wargames!), under "tortious interference" claims, under trademark, copyright and patent.

More than 50% of web users have installed an ad-blocker:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

But zero percent of app users have installed an ad-blocker, because they don't exist, because you'd go to prison if you made one. An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it.

This is why self-help, the third constraint, no longer applies. When a corporate sadist says, "let's make ads 25% more obnoxious to get 2% more revenue," no one says, "if we do that, our users will all install blockers." Instead, the response is, "let's make ads 100% more obnoxious and get an 8% revenue boost!"

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/16/23763227/uber-video-advertising-ads-taxi-food-delivery-apps

Which brings me to the final constraint: workers.

Tech workers have historically enjoyed enormous bargaining power, thanks to a dire shortage of qualified personnel. While this allowed tech workers to command high salaries and cushy benefits, it also led many workers to conceive of themselves as entrepreneurs-in-waiting and not workers at all.

This made tech workers very exploitable: their bosses could sell them on the idea that they were doing something heroic, which warranted "extremely hardcore" expectations – working 16 hour days, sleeping under your desk, sacrificing your health, your family and your personal life to meet deadlines and ship products ("Real artists ship" – S. Jobs).

But the flip side of this appeal to heroism is that it only worked to the extent that it convinced workers to genuinely care about the things they made. When you miss you mother's funeral and pass on having kids in order to meet deadline and ship a product, the prospect of making that product worse is unthinkable.

Confronted by the moral injury of enshittifying a product you care about, and harming the users you see yourself as representing, many tech workers balked at the prospect. Because tech workers were scarce – and because there were plenty of employment prospects for workers who quit – they could actually prevent their bosses from making their products worse:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

But those days are behind us, too. Mass tech worker layoffs have gutted tech workers' confidence. When Google lays off 12,000 tech workers just months after a stock buyback that would have paid their wages for the next 27 years, they deliver two benefits to their shareholders. It's not just the short-term gains from the financial engineering – there's the long-term gain of gutting worker power and stripping away the final impediment to enshittification:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/10/the-proletarianization-of-tech-workers/

No matter how strong an individual tech worker's bargaining power was, it was always brittle. Long before googlers were being laid off in five-digit cohorts, they were working in an environment where harassment and predation were just part of the job. The 20,000+ googlers who walked off the job in 2018 were an important step towards replacing the system where each tech worker's power was limited to their moment-to-moment importance to their bosses' plans with a new system based on a collective identity.

Only through collective action and solidarity – unions – could tech workers hope to truly resist all the moral injuries of their bosses enshittification imperatives. No surprise then, that tech unions are on the rise:

https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union

But what is a little surprising – and very heartening! – is what happens when techies start to self-identify as workers: they come to understand that they share common cause with the other workers at the bottom of the tech stack. Think of Amazon's tech workers walking out in solidarity with Amazon's warehouse workers:

https://gizmodo.com/tech-workers-speak-out-in-support-of-amazon-warehouse-s-1842839301

Superficially, the bottom rank of the tech industry is as different from the tech workers at the top as you can imagine. Tech workers are formally employed, with stock options, health care and theme-park "campuses" with gyms and gourmet cafeterias.

The gig workers who pack, drive, deliver and support tech products aren't even employees – they're misclassified as contractors. They don't get free massages – they get AI bosses that monitor their eyeballs and dock their paychecks for peeing:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

Gig workers desperately need unions, but they also derive extraordinary benefits from self-help measures. When an app is your boss, another app can make all the difference to your working conditions. Take Para, an app that fights algorithmic wage discrimination by allowing gig workers to collectively and automatically refuse any job where the pay is below a certain threshold, forcing the algorithm to pay everyone more:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/tech-rights-are-workers-rights-doordash-edition

Para is fighting a grim legal and technical battle against companies like Doordash, whose margins depend on atomized workers with atomized apps, prohibited from countertwiddling. This is a surprisingly effective tactic: in Indonesia, gig workers co-ops create suites of "tuyul" apps that modify the behavior of their bosses' apps', unilaterally securing concessions that they lack the bargaining power to secure by other means:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/08/tuyul-apps/#gojek

Tuyul apps and other forms of countertwiddling aren't a substitute for unionization, they're an adjunct to it. The union negotiator whose rank-and-file are able to modify the apps that monitor and control their working conditions operates from a position of strength. "Please give my members more bathroom breaks" is a lot weaker than, "If you want my members to stop hacking their apps so they can piss when they need to, you're going to have to give them official bathroom breaks."

This is where solidarity between the high-paid tech workers at the keyboard and low-paid tech workers on the delivery bikes comes in. Together, they can wring more concessions from their bosses, sure. But unionized coders can give their unionized delivery riders the apps they need to countertwiddle and increase the bargaining leverage of all the workers in the union. And when unionized coders' bosses force them to put enshittifying anti-features in the apps they care about, unionized front-line workers can run counter-apps that disenshittify them.

Other sectors are already working through versions of this. The ouster of the old corrupt leadership of the Teamsters ushered in a new, radical era that produced historic wage and working condition gains for drivers and the abolition of the two-tier contract system that eventually destroys any union that tries it.

That change in leadership was possible because the Teamsters organized the Harvard Grad Students, and those Harvard kids memorized the union rulebook. At the historic conference where the old guard was abolished, it was teamwork between the union rank-and-file and the rules-lawyers from Harvard that turned the proceedings around:

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/07/deconstructed-union-dhl-teamsters-uaw/

We are deep into the enshittocene and it is terribly demoralizing. But by understanding the constraints that kept enshittification at bay, we can rebuild them, and shore them up. Labor organizing among all kinds of tech workers isn't just a way to get a better deal for those workers – it's key to the disenshittification of all our lives.

I'm Kickstarting the audiobook for The Bezzle, the sequel to Red Team Blues, narrated by @wilwheaton! You can pre-order the audiobook and ebook, DRM free, as well as the hardcover, signed or unsigned. There's also bundles with Red Team Blues in ebook, audio or paperback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/#tech-unions

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

In the nine clones au. Perhaps they'd be very effective in taking down the resistance. And the only way to stop them is to point out how much comradery they have for each other and how they can be thier own family.

So for my own personal reference I'm going to link the previous ask I received about cloning Nine here.

ㅤ

Hmmm, you know, anon, I'm sort of interested in what kind of situations you took as a given for this sort of au. This is mostly because even if a bunch of versions of Nine's theoretically could dismantle the resistance, I'd have to wonder why?

I feel there are so many branching au ideas one could come up with just with this singular post.

Like the first that comes to mind (specifically with the angle of them going for the resistance rather than the Chaos Council) is that the clones were created by the council or created by Nine but they were all captured and weaponized by the council. And in this case you'd wonder just what the Council has on them that would keep them doing the Council's dirty work. Did the council capture the clones or create them and then turn them into Cyborg's like Rusty Rose? Did they partner with the Council and decide to take down the resistance because they believed that the council would value them and allow them not to be victimized as Nine had in his past? Did they only stop working with the council because they realized they they could protect themselves and be each other's company/found family together?

The second idea that comes to mind would be again based on the question "why would Nine and the clones turn to taking down the resistance instead of going for the Chaos Council". In this case, if we're assuming that Nine decided to clone himself and he and the clones discovered just how powerful and efficient they are by working together, perhaps Nine is able to place hope again in the idea that the Chaos Council can be overthrown. In this hypothetical situation, I can see Nine and the clones deciding to attack the resistance only to assume control over its resources and manpower. While it would probably be better strategically to create their own resistance and build rapport or try to go for the council on their own, maybe they decide to simply take over the resistance, believing they can lead the people to victory better than Rebel and Renegade? Although in this sort of situation, I think the clones + Nine realizing they can be each other's support and protection would only serve to make them more close knit rather than stop them from doing what they're doing with the resistance.

All in all though, personally if I had to create an au where Nine cloned himself and decided it was worth it to meddle in New Yoke, I'd either go for

An au where Nine and the clones decide to build their own resistance (essentially taking public stands or majorly messing with the Chaos Council's stuff with their tech knowledge), and while they ultimately share the same goal as the current resistance, they naturally end up forming a sort of rivalry. In this one I can see the family outcome coming out in the clones + Nine really only seeing the other as clones or partners but in the most clinical fashion at first, but once they get through some major events and power struggles and working through shared leadership issues, they eventually come to care for and support each other (not just as disposable copies either)

Rather than create their own resistance, they simply take their own measures to slowly take down the council (via a combination of hacking, manipulation, stealing the red shard from them, etc) once they come to believe that such a thing is possible together. But, likewise, even if they do succeed in taking down the council I can see them struggle with their interpersonal relationships and what to do when they actually take down the council.