#I so evil that I use products I paid money for

[trashcanniballecter]

me: you wouldn't download a perfume

me: *making solid perfumes from my liquid perfumes* oh ho ho but I would do that

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google’s enshittification memos

[Note, 9 October 2023: Google disputes the veracity of this claim, but has declined to provide the exhibits and testimony to support its claims. Read more about this here.]

When I think about how the old, good internet turned into the enshitternet, I imagine a series of small compromises, each seemingly reasonable at the time, each contributing to a cultural norm of making good things worse, and worse, and worse.

Think about Unity President Marc Whitten's nonpology for his company's disastrous rug-pull, in which they declared that everyone who had paid good money to use their tool to make a game would have to keep paying, every time someone downloaded that game:

The most fundamental thing that we’re trying to do is we’re building a sustainable business for Unity. And for us, that means that we do need to have a model that includes some sort of balancing change, including shared success.

https://www.wired.com/story/unity-walks-back-policies-lost-trust/

"Shared success" is code for, "If you use our tool to make money, we should make money too." This is bullshit. It's like saying, "We just want to find a way to share the success of the painters who use our brushes, so every time you sell a painting, we want to tax that sale." Or "Every time you sell a house, the company that made the hammer gets to wet its beak."

And note that they're not talking about shared risk here – no one at Unity is saying, "If you try to make a game with our tools and you lose a million bucks, we're on the hook for ten percent of your losses." This isn't partnership, it's extortion.

How did a company like Unity – which became a market leader by making a tool that understood the needs of game developers and filled them – turn into a protection racket? One bad decision at a time. One rationalization and then another. Slowly, and then all at once.

When I think about this enshittification curve, I often think of Google, a company that had its users' backs for years, which created a genuinely innovative search engine that worked so well it seemed like *magic, a company whose employees often had their pick of jobs, but chose the "don't be evil" gig because that mattered to them.

People make fun of that "don't be evil" motto, but if your key employees took the gig because they didn't want to be evil, and then you ask them to be evil, they might just quit. Hell, they might make a stink on the way out the door, too:

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/13/google-china-search-engine-employee-resigns/

Google is a company whose founders started out by publishing a scientific paper describing their search methodology, in which they said, "Oh, and by the way, ads will inevitably turn your search engine into a pile of shit, so we're gonna stay the fuck away from them":

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Those same founders retained a controlling interest in the company after it went IPO, explaining to investors that they were going to run the business without having their elbows jostled by shortsighted Wall Street assholes, so they could keep it from turning into a pile of shit:

https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/

And yet, it's turned into a pile of shit. Google search is so bad you might as well ask Jeeves. The company's big plan to fix it? Replace links to webpages with florid paragraphs of chatbot nonsense filled with a supremely confident lies:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/14/googles-ai-hype-circle/

How did the company get this bad? In part, this is the "curse of bigness." The company can't grow by attracting new users. When you have 90%+ of the market, there are no new customers to sign up. Hypothetically, they could grow by going into new lines of business, but Google is incapable of making a successful product in-house and also kills most of the products it buys from other, more innovative companies:

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Theoretically, the company could pursue new lines of business in-house, and indeed, the current leaders of companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Apple are all execs who figured out how to get the whole company to do something new, and were elevated to the CEO's office, making each one a billionaire and sealing their place in history.

It is for this very reason that any exec at a large firm who tries to make a business-wide improvement gets immediately and repeatedly knifed by all their colleagues, who correctly reason that if someone else becomes CEO, then they won't become CEO. Machiavelli was an optimist:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

With no growth from new customers, and no growth from new businesses, "growth" has to come from squeezing workers (say, laying off 12,000 engineers after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years), or business customers (say, by colluding with Facebook to rig the ad market with the Jedi Blue conspiracy), or end-users.

Now, in theory, we might never know exactly what led to the enshittification of Google. In theory, all of compromises, debates and plots could be lost to history. But tech is not an oral culture, it's a written one, and techies write everything down and nothing is ever truly deleted.

Time and again, Big Tech tells on itself. Think of FTX's main conspirators all hanging out in a group chat called "Wirefraud." Amazon naming its program targeting weak, small publishers the "Gazelle Project" ("approach these small publishers the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”). Amazon documenting the fact that users were unknowingly signing up for Prime and getting pissed; then figuring out how to reduce accidental signups, then deciding not to do it because it liked the money too much. Think of Zuck emailing his CFO in the middle of the night to defend his outsized offer to buy Instagram on the basis that users like Insta better and Facebook couldn't compete with them on quality.

It's like every Big Tech schemer has a folder on their desktop called "Mens Rea" filled with files like "Copy_of_Premeditated_Murder.docx":

https://doctorow.medium.com/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself-f7f0eb6d215a?sk=351f8a54ab8e02d7340620e5eec5024d

Right now, Google's on trial for its sins against antitrust law. It's a hard case to make. To secure a win, the prosecutors at the DoJ Antitrust Division are going to have to prove what was going on in Google execs' minds when the took the actions that led to the company's dominance. They're going to have to show that the company deliberately undertook to harm its users and customers.

Of course, it helps that Google put it all in writing.

Last week, there was a huge kerfuffile over the DoJ's practice of posting its exhibits from the trial to a website each night. This is a totally normal thing to do – a practice that dates back to the Microsoft antitrust trial. But Google pitched a tantrum over this and said that the docs the DoJ were posting would be turned into "clickbait." Which is another way of saying, "the public would find these documents very interesting, and they would be damning to us and our case":

https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/secrecy-is-systemic

After initially deferring to Google, Judge Amit Mehta finally gave the Justice Department the greenlight to post the document. It's up. It's wild:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416692.pdf

The document is described as "notes for a course on communication" that Google VP for Finance Michael Roszak prepared. Roszak says he can't remember whether he ever gave the presentation, but insists that the remit for the course required him to tell students "things I didn't believe," and that's why the document is "full of hyperbole and exaggeration."

OK.

But here's what the document says: "search advertising is one of the world's greatest business models ever created…illicit businesses (cigarettes or drugs) could rival these economics…[W]e can mostly ignore the demand side…(users and queries) and only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats and sales."

It goes on to say that this might be changing, and proposes a way to balance the interests of the search and ads teams, which are at odds, with search worrying that ads are pushing them to produce "unnatural search experiences to chase revenue."

"Unnatural search experiences to chase revenue" is a thinly veiled euphemism for the prophetic warnings in that 1998 Pagerank paper: "The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users." Or, more plainly, "ads will turn our search engine into a pile of shit."

And, as Roszak writes, Google is "able to ignore one of the fundamental laws of economics…supply and demand." That is, the company has become so dominant and cemented its position so thoroughly as the default search engine across every platforms and system that even if it makes its search terrible to goose revenues, users won't leave. As Lily Tomlin put it on SNL: "We don't have to care, we're the phone company."

In the enshittification cycle, companies first lure in users with surpluses – like providing the best search results rather than the most profitable ones – with an eye to locking them in. In Google's case, that lock-in has multiple facets, but the big one is spending billions of dollars – enough to buy a whole Twitter, every single year – to be the default search everywhere.

Google doesn't buy its way to dominance because it has the very best search results and it wants to shield you from inferior competitors. The economically rational case for buying default position is that preventing competition is more profitable than succeeding by outperforming competitors. The best reason to buy the default everywhere is that it lets you lower quality without losing business. You can "ignore the demand side, and only focus on advertisers."

For a lot of people, the analysis stops here. "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product." Google locks in users and sells them to advertisers, who are their co-conspirators in a scheme to screw the rest of us.

But that's not right. For one thing, paying for a product doesn't mean you won't be the product. Apple charges a thousand bucks for an iPhone and then nonconsensually spies on every iOS user in order to target ads to them (and lies about it):

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

John Deere charges six figures for its tractors, then runs a grift that blocks farmers from fixing their own machines, and then uses their control over repair to silence farmers who complain about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/31/dealers-choice/#be-a-shame-if-something-were-to-happen-to-it

Fair treatment from a corporation isn't a loyalty program that you earn by through sufficient spending. Companies that can sell you out, will sell you out, and then cry victim, insisting that they were only doing their fiduciary duty for their sacred shareholders. Companies are disciplined by fear of competition, regulation or – in the case of tech platforms – customers seizing the means of computation and installing ad-blockers, alternative clients, multiprotocol readers, etc:

https://doctorow.medium.com/an-audacious-plan-to-halt-the-internets-enshittification-and-throw-it-into-reverse-3cc01e7e4604?sk=85b3f5f7d051804521c3411711f0b554

Which is where the next stage of enshittification comes in: when the platform withdraws the surplus it had allocated to lure in – and then lock in – business customers (like advertisers) and reallocate it to the platform's shareholders.

For Google, there are several rackets that let it screw over advertisers as well as searchers (the advertisers are paying for the product, and they're also the product). Some of those rackets are well-known, like Jedi Blue, the market-rigging conspiracy that Google and Facebook colluded on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

But thanks to the antitrust trial, we're learning about more of these. Megan Gray – ex-FTC, ex-DuckDuckGo – was in the courtroom last week when evidence was presented on Google execs' panic over a decline in "ad generating searches" and the sleazy gimmick they came up with to address it: manipulating the "semantic matching" on user queries:

https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/

When you send a query to Google, it expands that query with terms that are similar – for example, if you search on "Weds" it might also search for "Wednesday." In the slides shown in the Google trial, we learned about another kind of semantic matching that Google performed, this one intended to turn your search results into "a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape."

Here's how that worked: when you ran a query like "children's clothing," Google secretly appended the brand name of a kids' clothing manufacturer to the query. This, in turn, triggered a ton of ads – because rival brands will have bought ads against their competitors' name (like Pepsi buying ads that are shown over queries for Coke).

Here we see surpluses being taken away from both end-users and business customers – that is, searchers and advertisers. For searchers, it doesn't matter how much you refine your query, you're still going to get crummy search results because there's an unkillable, hidden search term stuck to your query, like a piece of shit that Google keeps sticking to the sole of your shoe.

But for advertisers, this is also a scam. They're paying to be matched to users who search on a brand name, and you didn't search on that brand name. It's especially bad for the company whose name has been appended to your search, because Google has a protection racket where the company that matches your search has to pay extra in order to show up overtop of rivals who are worse matches. Both the matching company and those rivals have given Google a credit-card that Google gets to bill every time a user searches on the company's name, and Google is just running fraudulent charges through those cards.

And, of course, Google put this in writing. I mean, of course they did. As we learned from the documentary The Incredibles, supervillains can't stop themselves from monologuing, and in big, sprawling monopolists, these monologues have to transmitted electronically – and often indelibly – to far-flung co-cabalists.

As Gray points out, this is an incredibly blunt enshittification technique: "it hadn’t even occurred to me that Google just flat out deletes queries and replaces them with ones that monetize better." We don't know how long Google did this for or how frequently this bait-and-switch was deployed.

But if this is a blunt way of Google smashing its fist down on the scales that balance search quality against ad revenues, there's plenty of subtler ways the company could sneak a thumb on there. A Google exec at the trial rhapsodized about his company's "contract with the user" to deliver an "honest results policy," but given how bad Google search is these days, we're left to either believe he's lying or that Google sucks at search.

The paper trail offers a tantalizing look at how a company went from doing something that was so good it felt like a magic trick to being "able to ignore one of the fundamental laws of economics…supply and demand," able to "ignore the demand side…(users and queries) and only focus on the supply side of advertisers."

What's more, this is a system where everyone loses (except for Google): this isn't a grift run by Google and advertisers on users – it's a grift Google runs on everyone.

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/2023/10/03/not-feeling-lucky/#fundamental-laws-of-economics

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[naamahdarling]

I'm probably going to piss some people off with this, but.

The use of AI and machine learning for harmful purposes is absolutely unacceptable.

But that isn't an innate part of what it does.

Apps or sites using AI to generate playlists or reading lists or a list of recipes based on a prompt you enter: absolutely fantastic, super helpful, so many new things to enjoy, takes jobs from no-one.

Apps or sites that use a biased algorithm (which is AI) which is not controllable by users or able to be turned off by them, to push some content and suppress others to maximize engagement and create compulsive behavior in users: unethical, bad, capitalism issue, human issue.

People employing genAI to create images for personal, non-profit use and amusement who would not have paid someone for the same service: neutral, (potential copyright and ethics issue if used for profit, which would be a human issue).

People incorporating genAI as part of their artistic process, where the medium of genAI is itself is a deliberate part of the artist's technique: valid, interesting.

Companies employing genAI to do the work of a graphic designer, and websites using genAI to replace the cost of stock photos: bad, shitty, no, capitalist and ethical human issue.

People attacking small artists who use it with death threats and unbelievable vitriol: bad, don't do that.

AI used for spell check and grammar assistance: really great.

AI employed by eBay sellers to cut down on the time it takes to make listings: good, very helpful, but might be a bad idea as it does make mistakes and that can cost them money, which would be a technical issue.

AI used to generate fake product photos: deceptive, lazy, bad, human ethical issue.

AI used to identify plagiarism: neutral; could be really helpful but the parameters are defined by unrealistic standards and not interrogated by those who employ it. Human ethical issue.

AI used to analyze data and draw up complex models allowing detection of things like cancer cells: good; humans doing this work take much longer, this gives results much faster and allows faster intervention, saving lives.

AI used to audit medical or criminal records and gatekeep coverage or profile people: straight-up evil. Societal issue, human ethical issue.

AI used to organize and classify your photos so you don't have to spend all that time doing it: helpful, good.

AI used to profile people or surveil people: bad and wrong. Societal issue, human issue, ethical issue.

I'm not going to cover the astonishingly bad misinformation that has been thrown out there about genAI, or break down thought distortions, or go into the dark side of copyright law, or dive into exactly how it uses the data it is fed to produce a result, or explain how it does have many valid uses in the arts if you have any imagination and curiosity, and I'm not holding anyone's hand and trying to walk them out of all the ableism and regurgitated capitalist arguments and the glorification of labor and suffering.

I just want to point out: you use machine learning (AI) all the time, you benefit from it all the time. You could probably identify many more examples that you use every day. Knee-jerk panicked hate reflects ignorance, not sound principles.

You don't have beef with AI, you have beef with human beings, how they train it, and how they use it. You have beef with capitalism and thoughtlessness. And so do I. I will ruthlessly mock or decry misuse or bad use of it. But there is literally nothing inherently bad in the technology.

I am aware of and hate its misuse just as much as you do. Possibly more, considering that I am aware of some pretty heinous ways it's being used that a lot of people are not. (APPRISS, which is with zero competition for the title the most evil use of machine learning I have ever seen, and which is probably being used on you right now.)

You need to stop and actually think about why people do bad things with it instead of falling for the red herring and going after the technology (as well as the weakest human target you can find) every time you see those two letters together.

You cannot protect yourself and other people against its misuse if you cannot separate that misuse against its neutral or helpful uses, or if you cannot even identify what AI and machine learning are.

[countdracublahh]

Here are my thoughts about the watcher situation:

1) my PERSONAL issue is not the fact that the content is being paywalled. I understand and believe that an artist should be able to charge what they think their work is worth. I have paid for patreons and memberships before when I had a bit of extra money so I fully support creators getting adequate compensation. HOWEVER, the way this was rolled out was almost comically bad. The video felt tone deaf at times and it felt like this decision was only halfway thought through. There were many steps they could have taken to try to mitigate production costs before jumping ship.

2) Why did people suddenly decide that everything had to have been Steven’s fault? I’m not even a Steven fan, but this is ridiculous. Even if it was Steven’s idea, Ryan and Shane still sat and filmed the video. They are still the co-founders and have repeatedly supported Steven’s choices as CEO. Where did this narrative that Steven is an evil, corrupt, greedy, leader and poor Ryan and Shane are forced against their will to do these things come from? I’ve followed Ryan and Shane since Buzzfeed Unsolved like many of us here, but we can’t let them escape criticism because the idea of them doing something bad hurts.

3) As someone currently going to school for stuff like this, I would LOVE to see the research they used to come to this decision. That’s not even me trying to be shady. I genuinely want to know. The community response has been so overwhelmingly negative that I have to assume that they either 1) did not have enough data, or 2) did not collect any data themselves and relied on outside sources that didn’t fully understand the landscape of watcher’s viewership. Either way I want to know.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

I have always thought that Meghan does not make her own money, does not see any projects throught to completion and isn't launching her own company is because she does not want to split money with Harry in case of a divorce.

I feel she is of the mentality that what's his is hers, but what's hers is just hers. (I took that phrase from somewhere online, but I can't remey where from).

That's the reason she kept her agent and publicist in US when she married in 2018,so he could deal with her company Frim Fram while she was in the UK. It's the reason she wanted to get pain fromthe work she did while royal and wasn't happy with the 3 mil stipend.

And it's the reason all their major money-making projects have been Harry's - Book deal, Invictus, Better Up , or joint - Netflix.

When Harry loses money (the lawsuits) she is mad. But when she loses money (pr, paid mag covers, 40x40 merch, Bench, insane spending for fake Un tour etc) it's just an investment gone wrong and they never talk about it again.

I think Meghan always just wanted to be an influencer, even when that word wasn't a thing. She liked the Tig thing she did and that's all she wants to do. Archwrll is very much modelled along those lines where she updates their stuff like updating a blog.

I know people sayshe isn't very good with follow through but I don't think she is that bad. Their failure has got a lot to do with Harry and him simply not knowing, not being capable of doing, not being very good at carrying projects on his own without a capable team.

The moment their divorce is finalized and the financials have been settled (and locked in) she will start working (hustling) and she will start making money the way she wants to. It will be something stupid and ridiculous, mostly speaking fees, appearances, red carpet merching or some product line. But she will make money.

She is just hedging her bets now and milking the royal money train dry. Whatever she has made so far in the past 7 years is safely locked in some other bank account under some company name that someone else is the front of.

You don't even have to be an evil genius to do that just have some financial acuity and ambition. Ones a hustler, always a hustler.

Ask from August 20th

Some good points here.

I disagree that Meghan has follow-through. Nothing I’ve seen from her since 2015ish shows she has follow-through. She does the bare basic minimum and the team around her finishes everything so she can put her name on it. She did it on The Tig. She did it for Suits. She did to the Hubb Kitchen cookbook. She did it with the royal tours. She did it with the fauxyal tours. She did it with Smartworks. She did it with 40x40. She did it with the UN. She did it with India and Malta and Rwanda charity work. She did it with the USO tour. She did it with the wedding. She did it with Vogue UK.

The only things Meghan did herself was throw everyone under the bus and stab them in the back. And even that’s sometimes questionable.

So she needs the capable team around her too, but capable means something different for Meghan. Where Harry’s “capable team” meant having people who do literally everything for him from picking out his clothes to taking him for munchies to running his own charity programs, Meghan’s “capable team” means having people who do exactly what she wants, when she wants them to, as she wants them to, and to read her mind as to when/how/where she wants things.

And that’s not someone who’s a good boss. That’s a terrible boss, a toxic one, one who has no problem screaming at people and throwing them under the bus, one who’ll underpay her staff and manipulate them into unethical or immoral behavior, work them to the bone, and who demands not just total loyalty, but 24/7 access and commitment. Everyone knows that about Meghan. Everyone sees that about Meghan. (And if one doesn’t see that about her, then one doesn’t have enough experience in the workplace or has never had a toxic boss of their own.)

And because Meghan is that kind of a boss, the only reason she has a capable team around her now is because of Harry. Because it looks really good on people’s resumes to work for the Duke of Sussex because they can leverage that to other big high-faluting jobs with more important people and more important work.

The second Meghan doesn’t have Harry, not only is that team gone, so is the world’s tolerance for Meghan Markle. She can hustle all she wants to get the paychecks she believes she deserves, but she isn’t going to get it. She’s getting no better than what she has now because it’s the same thing she got before Harry. If people weren’t interested in her before Harry, they definitely won’t be interested once her 15 minutes are up and her memoir washes out of the news cycle, and they won’t be interested because she can’t do anything for them. She doesn’t move magazines. She doesn’t sell clothes. She couldn’t sell her own book. She can’t even sell her own jam, dog biscuits, and kids.

The best her hustling post-Harry can get her is probably a spot on The View when her memoir comes out but even that’s not a sure thing because she’ll want them to fawn over her and I guarantee you, someone will be rolling their eyes at her in front of her. My money is on Whoopi.

[alpaca-clouds]

Colonialism never ended

Okay, let me talk about one thing that a lot of white folks don't quite seem to realize. And that is the fact that colonialism never really ended.

Like, the official telling of it was: "Oh, yeah, after world war 2 the colonizing nations realized it was wrong." Or, if it is more honest, then: "Yeah, after world war 2 the colonizing empires were out of money to uphold her colonies." But even that still very much is a total lie. We still live under colonialism - both settler colonialism and extractionist colonialism.

Probably the easiest way to realize, we still have settler colonialism in place, is to look at the amount of land that never was in any way or form given back to the indigenous folks who once called it their home. No, they do not get to live there again. And also, no, they will not see a penny of the money that might be extracted from their former homes through development, agriculture or for example oil extraction.

In the US the state that shows it maybe the strongest is Hawai'i, in which indigenous folks are more and more pushed away from where they were living and praying, as parts of the island get used for tourism, rich people homes, military stuff or maybe a nice observatory on one of their sacret sights. More and more indigenous Hawai'ians are forced to move away from Hawai'i. Because through the rich folks and their development, they cannot afford to live on their own islands any longer.

We also see it through extractions. I already spoke about the land in the USA, but the same is happening in so many other places. A lot of land (especially mines) all over Africa are still owned by white people directly or indirectly. So they will still, to this day, extract the wealth from it.

Or, heck, we have all those exotic fruit plantages all over the tropical regions. Like how the US literally overthrew a government to keep the banana productions going and keeping it in white people hands.

Or there is of course the fact that the fucking lines onf the maps we have now have been drawn by white people, artificially grouping people together, who might not even be from the same culture. Something that often instabilized nations - an outcome that was very clearly intended, to make it easier to control and extract value from the nations in question.

Just look at the entire thing with the Sykes-Picot-agreement, that is responsible for so many of the wars happening in the Arabian world right now. Or at the division of India, that was and still is cause for so much violence.

And of course, while Slavery is officially outlawed, the US kinda contructed its justice system all around keeping it further going. By criminalizing Black people for all sorts of stuff and then making unpaid prison labor legal.

Colonialism is still going strong. And really, whenever western nations go crying about China's neocolonialism, what they are really crying about is, that it loosens their own colonialist control over them. Not that there is colonialism happening at all.

And we cannot have a just world, until we fully decolonize and until reparations are paid for the evils that have happened for now five hundred years.

This is also, why we cannot have anything in terms of solarpunk futures, until we decolonize. Because solarpunk aims for a just world. A just world that cannot exist unter colonialism.

[where-are-the-spooky-gays-2]

hey, I heard you liked assassin AUs? this ask turned out long as eff, whoops.

tw: mentions of death, murder, gore, dismemberment, mutilation, poison, and probably more. General assassin stuff. (not described, just mentioned)(murder, death, and poison are mentioned throughout, but the rest is just in the first paragraph)

so: 

Everyone has heard of the Duke, he’s a terror. He kills for anyone who pays him, and he does it gruesomely. If you want hearts ripped out of chests, people ground into sausage meat, one body part sent to each of the corpse’s loved ones, you go to the Duke. I heard he lives in the forest near… I know someone who knows someone… he’s easy to find, just go north. The Duke is the kind of story older kids tell to their younger siblings. He’ll find you, he’ll rip you in half… Other, less well-known assassins have said that he won’t last long. They’ve seen killers with his style before, they get careless. They get caught. It hasn’t happened yet though, so who knows? One of those assassins is found impaled the next day, DUKE carved into his chest as a warning to the others. 

Very few have heard of Anxiety. 

Good, Virgil thinks, as he slips ricin powder into a teabag. (He works as a castor oil salesman, he has to use the byproduct for something.) He mails the teabag to the address written on the discreet envelope he had received, and another corrupt politician is dead within the month. Technically, Virgil’s never killed anyone. It’s none of his business what his clients do with his products, after all. 

One day, Virgil is collecting the mail from the false address he uses as Anxiety, and he notices a letter. The stationery is too fancy, the handwriting would be easily identified—either this client is very stupid or they don’t care about being found out, which amounts to the same thing regardless. He carefully opens the letter.

It contains a hundred worth of marks, and instructions.

The instructions say to travel to the royal court. To get a job as a servant in the palace kitchens. To administer his product to the king and four others, whose names Virgil only vaguely recognizes. They must be important, though, for this much money.

He doesn’t usually travel, and this job seems dangerous... Clearly, more factors are at play here than a hired killer is permitted to know. But the letter promises four hundred more when the murder is done, and, well, that’s a lot of money. Virgil would be set for life. And who knows the consequences if he declines? 

He starts a mental packing list, and is on the road to the court within the week. 

(end) 

idk yet what happens next—my current idea is that Remus is also hired to kill the same people, and only the person who completes the job gets paid for it. That’s not great though… I kinda feel like one of them (probably Virgil) would just give up on the job if there was competition. It’d be pretty easy to contrive a reason for them to Not Do That—maybe if they don’t complete the job, they get killed? Virgil’s mysterious employer is already planning to kill him when the job is done, though—can’t have anyone knowing that you were (indirectly) the one to kill the previous king. Virgil isn’t fully aware of his employer’s plans, but he suspects. Virgil suspects everything. Paranoia keeps him alive. 

WAIT ACTUALLY IDEA (you are watching me brainstorm this au in real time)(ooh, how would a brainstorm work in the Mindscape? anyways)

I stopped typing for a sec and my brain wandered over to thinking about where the other sides could come into this au. (bear with me. also, this idea isn’t necessarily better than the last one. you have been warned.) 

So. Virgil’s employer (who I will call M. Evil or probably Mevil from now on) is probably killing the four people who are ahead of them for the throne, right? 

And Roman is a prince, right? 

So: Remus is Roman’s brother… c!Thomas is their dad… Logan and Janus are also ahead of Mevil for the throne (maybe one or both of them is engaged to Roman)… See where I’m going with this? (Maybe? Yes? No?)

(and Patton is the royal baker, Virgil’s boss while he works at the palace. Nobody is trying to kill him, but he might be accidentally endangered anyways)

okay, so Remus is the black sheep of the family, as he is wont to be in basically every AU I write. Being the Duke is sort of his side hobby? (Legally, he is a duke. Being a serial killer is the side hobby) He travels a lot, which is fairly normal for nobility. And wherever he goes, bloodshed follows.

There are theories among the kingdom that the Duke is following Remus, disturbingly obsessed with him. No one suspects that Remus might be the Duke, because Remus is a public figure and is ostensibly under too much scrutiny to get away with literal murder. Interestingly enough, it’s usually the crown’s political opponents who are murdered? Who knows why that could be. 

Somehow (brainstorm first, details later) Remus hears of a plot to murder himself, his twin, his father, and a few of his favourite court members. He travels back to the court to protect them, because who can defend from an assassin better than an assassin? He immediately clocks Virgil as the would-be-killer, they mutually attempt to kill each other a few times, then they fall in gay love and kill Mevil. The end. 

hmm. not the best, but probably better than my first idea. 

thoughts? 

-🐢

I fucking L O V E both ideas S O fucking much oml P L E A S E!!! I absolutely adore the cleverness of their assassin names and Ree being the most creatively gruesome towards his targets is so badass and fitting!!! Character!Thomas being the Creativitwins' dads is such an underrated concept that I L O V E and I am L O O K I N G at that Roloceit implication 👀👀👀👀👀👀 I seriously find the concept that no one suspects Ree to be a known assassin because of his title and that he'd "easily be caught" is D E L I C I O U S like he's just doing his royal duties nothing to see here he's definitely not causing murders or anything XD Also I L O V E that the beloveds are out for each other at first because Ree needs to protect himself and his people but they end up in love and killing Vee's employer instead that's just beautiful <3

[hwanswerland]

i have many opinions after the ateez ticket sale and i really want to rant bout them some more. i feel like this really showcased what i dislike about kpop as a genre and general concept and what stereotypes about it i see as (somewhat) true: that the artist is a commodity, and it's only about the money.

because wdym you have to pay 250 to 550 euros to be able to stand in front of the stage? i've been to a few rock concerts of big, internationally famous bands, and was like second row just because i arrived like 30mins earlier than i expected. and i paid 85 euros for that lol. someone i know got front row seats for paul mccartney and they were 150 each and they were considered expensive but worth it to a super fan. not to mention that at a kpop concert the general standing ticket is soooooo fucking overpriced for getting a guaranteed place behind all the vips and no way of being really close to the stage. my sister paid 90 for taylor swift standing tickets, like hello???? 100+ for a ticket is already far too much imo.

i hate that you have to pay that kind of money to see an artist you like. and for a kpop group where SEEING them is definitely part of the appeal of going and everyone knows that, it just feels so evil that companies price tours like this, knowing the fans are going to pay whatever anyway. however 550 euro is more than i pay for rent and never in my life would i pay that much just to see someone sing and dance on a stage. no shade to everyone who would and does, i'm happy for everyone who got a ticket. but still. that's just evil. isn't art supposed to be for everyone, accessible to EVERYONE and not only the priviledged?

while i'm at it i have some things to say about the vip1 things that may not be very popular opinions lmao. firstly not to mention getting signed things (like last tour i believe) just by paying a lot more than others -> people not as priviledged may never/with difficulty get something like that, and tbh many people i've seen online really thinking of themselves as 'better fans' just because they paid more. what a fucked up world this is lmao. i mean people get vip1 for barricade and the send off event right? i get wanting to be in the front row, even though i cannot understand most people then watching the concert through their phone, recording everything in hope to get their y/n moment, which is another thing i could rant about forever. anyway, the send off. idk what it's this time, but hi-touch has been what happened before so maybe it's that again and literally all i have to say about that is YIKES. bc let's be real, what you're paying for is to touch a stranger, who by virtue of contracts and people hvaing paid horrendous sums cannot actually consent to this. maybe they don't mind, maybe they do, we will never know because they're not allowed to say and everyone saying that they'd tell us if they're uncomfortable is delusional. like they get off the stage after hours of extensive physical workout, put into hair and makeup again to clean them up and make them look flawless again, and then made to sit/stand/wave/etc. i'm more than willing to pay artists, and in return i expect them to perform whatever i'm there for, but that's it. it's their job to put on a show. but does it really also have to be their job to fulfill some parasocial fantasies their fans, that they do not even know, have? especially when it's not even them doing it of their own free will. the members showing up in the pop-up stores last tour okay, if they want to say hi to fans then good for them. but staying late after a show? idk man. it really just doesn't feel right to me to treat them like products like this.

[octopuscityblues]

At The Talkies

EGGBERT: Hi! I'm Robar Eggbert of the Samarduk Tribune.

GRINKEL: And I'm Steen Grinkel of the Samarduk Sun.

EGGBERT: And you're watching "At the Talkies with Eggbert and Grinkel".

GRINKEL: Grinkel and Eggbert…

EGGBERT: In your dreams, Steen! Now we've got a lot to cover in today's episode, from stories of corporate espionage to cautionary tales of evil sofas and destructive monkeys.

GRINKEL: My esteemed colleague is referring to the three films we'll be dissecting today: "The Mole: Undercover Inside Ghost In A Bottle", "Dread Couch: The Sofa That Kills", and "Metamorphers vs. Giant Ape: The Motion Picture".

EGGBERT: Let's start with "The Mole". In this captivating documentary, gonzo journalist Jager S. MacTavish infiltrates the nefarious Ghost in a Bottle conglomerate to bring us a riveting account of the tech giant's day-to-day operations..

GRINKEL: This extremely biased documentary was funded by the radical Mothers Against GIAB International (MAGI), and boy does it show! When it's not too busy slandering a vital pillar of the global economy, it does provide a few interesting insights into the highly-anticipated Octopus City Blues project.

EGGBERT: Despite the corporation's heightened security and leak-prevention measures, Mr. MacTavish successfully managed to assemble a collage of super-secret artwork, providing a glimpse into never-before-seen areas and characters.

EGGBERT (CONT'D): Furthermore, various cryptic codewords and phrases were heard around the office, with employees working on enigmatic features such as "House of Wonders", "Cure for Baldness", "Beetle Fandom", and "Three-way Standoff". Who knows what any of it really means?

GRINKEL: Our supposed "journalist" also interviewed artist Niko Tunson, the newest addition to the team. Niko contributed a number of exquisite animations, helping to enrich the simulation's virtual world and bring its colorful cast of characters to life.

EGGBERT: I personally liked "The Mole". On one hand, it's largely a cornball exercise in sentimental manipulation—particularly all the scenes involving the baby spiderbot. At the same time, it effectively illustrates the evil lurking at the heart of a heartless zaibatsu, and serves as a scathing indictment of a history of delays and flimsy excuses.

GRINKEL: Boy, are we apart on this one, Robar! The feature I watched was nothing more than an obvious piece of MAGI propaganda, and I'm positively shocked that someone as educated as you would fall for it.

GRINKEL (CONT'D): I admit that Octopus City Blues is taking forever to complete, but you simply can't rush art. The good folks at GiaB have gotten so much done this year—they even updated the demo again last week. All you have to do is read their previous updates to better understand the delays. In particular, there's the recurring difficulty in planning around the fluctuating personal circumstances of everyone involved.

And did you even catch the leaked trailer shown after the credits, by the way? It was originally unveiled at the Six One Indie business event. The trailer's director is none other than Bitmapkid, the visionary auteur behind last year's most controversial independent film: "Are Videogames Art?" The fact that they're actively promoting their simulation should dispel any doubts you might harbor.

EGGBERT: Oh, don't give me that trite art balderdash. The only thing that matters is the finished product. People have been waiting for years, and some of them even paid money for it. What's wrong? By the rude and annoying off-screen noises you're making I take it that you disagree…

GRINKEL: It's just that Ghost in a Bottle never stopped pursuing their dreams, and that's why we should never stop believing in them. They definitely made countless mistakes, but every ghost starts out as an errant human. And if someone out there is still not satisfied, the customer relations team is always happy to answer their questions or offer refunds if needed.

Honestly, Robar, all of this makes me wonder whether you're being a contrarian for kicks, or if you simply got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Your take is the typical kind of blasé, sophisticated, cynical review we've come to expect from snobbish critics who can't place themselves in the shoes of real artists.

EGGBERT: Am I supposed to sit here and listen to insults from the same "critic" who gave two thumbs up to obnoxious snooze fests like "Carnotaurus" and "Battlestar Trooper"?

GRINKEL: And do I need to remind you that you're the only major critic who actually liked "One and a Half Pig"? And how about the time you lambasted the critically acclaimed "Silence of the Clams"?

EGGBERT: Oh please, Steen! Did GiaB pay you to be their mouthpiece? Is that what this is all about? I knew things were rough with the divorce and everything, but if all you needed was some extra money…

GRINKEL: Why would you say such a thing, Robar? You really should be ashamed of yourself!

EGGBERT: I'm not the one engaged in all the self-congratulatory bootlicking and outright dismissal of completely valid consumer concerns. My point still stands: when is Octopus City Blues actually coming out?

GRINKEL: I don't have an answer to your question. Next year, maybe? Some time in the next 6 months? They did promise to give a "more serious" update before the end of the year, whatever that means…

EGGBERT: Of course it's next year! It's always next year! But fine… I'll believe it when I finally see it.

GRINKEL: We've wasted enough time on this frivolous discussion. Moving on, let's talk about the complex symbolism in "Dread Couch: The Sofa That Kills", and what it says about humanity's place in a cold, lonely universe.

[twentyyearstoolate]

I know it's probably not even close to accurate, but I can't stop myself from thinking from time to time that we could have all been living in a fully automated gay space luxury communism solarpunk utopia if neoliberals hadn't fought to hide the impact of fossil fuels on the climate and run fearmongering propaganda against marginalized communities to keep us bickering and to keep the prevailing wage lower than the cost of inner city parking spaces, all for the glorious accomplishment of having trillionaires in our lifetime.

Like we're just now seeing automated fast food joints and humanoid robots doing menial labor and self-driving vehicles (which will still be less efficient than communal kitchens, distribution sites developed outside of the form factor requirements of human labor, and well-developed public transit that's hamstrung at every turn by Big Auto but works in literally every other developed country just fine today) because the projected costs of implementation for all that are finally dropping below the paltry $7.25 an hour paid out to like half the country, because service jobs are the one thing that couldn't be outsourced to jack up the stock price, and there's a voice in the back of my head that says "we could have had all this and then some decades ago if the point of cutting human labor out wasn't to drive costs down, but to provide as many people as possible with a comfortable life."

It honest-to-god sickens me that we reached this point off the lifeblood of people around the world who, staring down the barrel of a global hegemon, had no other choice but to work themselves to death for shit-fifty an hour - that we crossed this cost-benefit analysis line not by the rising of wages to sustain a living, but by the fall of development costs in the wake of hypercapitalist productivity, to the point that big business can safely and comfortably yank the rug out from people scraping by on poverty wages without excessive setbacks to profits. And of course, unlike the optimistic predictions of the retrofuturistic PSAs of the 50's, it's not like anybody but the ultrawealthy who already own everything will benefit from zeroing their labor costs. And with no money left to buy the useless plastic shit that's cooking the globe on its way from factories to warehouses to landfills, everyone else gets hung out to dry as the world burns. Out-fucking-standing.

I hate to feel angry and defeated, so I'd like to channel it into something positive. I'm throwing some union links out here. Get in contact and learn how to unite your coworkers who are upset about the cost of living - you stand a far better chance of uniting them under that umbrella than anything else, and it'll be a lot more effective than just choosing the lesser of two evils every four years.

United Food & Commercial Workers

Teamsters

Service Employees International Union

Industrial Workers of the World

[ouidamforeman]

Okay if you hope Neil dies then stop giving him money, stop giving him indirect revenue by keeping his fandom alive. Say it with your whole chest or don’t say it at all

Fandom is not an advertisement and I haven’t paid for anything that goes to him for years 😌 Pretending all fandom is “indirect revenue” to anyone who created a piece of media whether it’s a writer or anything else is disingenuous and performative and trying to control others to your arbitrary moral standards. You are not only reducing fandom to consumerism but dismissing many other people’s work as well. Pretending that something this indirect is causing harm is performative when people do things and Actually spend money on things that do real direct harm. I’m also suspicious of this attitude of “cut all monetary flow to bad people” because well while celebrities absolutely don’t need that money and can often use it for harm, “someone did a Bad and therefore they should not be paid” is a bit iffy to me. The degree to which money is power in these situations is subjective and I know it’s uncomfortable but whether one’s money is going somewhere it’s doing harm or not is your individual decision to make. I’m not even spending money on NG myself and im skeptical of what practical good “no more money” would do in this case. It’s largely symbolic. There are ways to cull a bad person’s influence that aren’t harassing random fans of work that was never even solely made by this guy on social media. I and others are perfectly capable of enjoying a novel or tv show while cutting support and acceptance of a writer. Discussion of this and not letting the issue be swept away is how we do this, not nebulous “you’re symbolically supporting a bad evil guy!!”. He did harm with his power and influence which we can prevent without being reactionary and acting like a work of art or adaptation are synonymous with the person who made them (and never made alone, even!!!) Pretending this man is a sole auteur of good omens or whatever the fuck else is giving him power he doesn’t deserve, and causing wanton destruction because you feel powerless to stop harm that’s already happened is unbelievably foolish. Genuinely go outside and think about what good you can actually do instead of harassing people who are not even supporting the guy materially in any way and are in fact committed to finding ways of keeping him away from vulnerable people in fan spaces and calling for him to be removed from productions so everyone else’s work can be honored without more needless destruction, you know, something materially practical that isn’t moral posturing. You have literally made up that I am funneling money to this guy when I am not, and you know what? If he gets paid for work he did I don’t really care. I care about stopping the influence he had over people. I don’t think “something you did could possibly be construed as an advertisement for something he contributed to!!!!” and “Make absolutely sure none of your money is in any way even indirectly going to the bad evil person!” are the way to do any of this.

Also like fuck Terry Pratchett I guess, there’s no way one of his best works deserves to go in the trash because the co writer is a shit guy. Different people are going to deal with this in different ways. We all just want to prevent harm and people WILL disagree on what the best way to do that is. I think it’s getting him to step down from these media projects and not be involved in spaces where he can exert influence anymore. You may disagree, but do Not pretend you are ostensibly in the only moral right just because it looks good to you to say fake activist soundbites like this in random financially powerless fans’ inboxes. I keep joking that i hope he dies because i actually am mad and want him to stop! I’m doing what my moral compass says is ok. And that’s all I’ll say on the matter. Go do something kind instead of trying to control others

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Podcasting "Microincentives and Enshittification"

Tomorrow (Oct 25) at 10hPT/18hUK, I'm livestreaming an event called "Seizing the Means of Computation" for the Edinburgh Futures Institute.

This week on my podcast, I read my recent Medium column, "Microincentives and Enshittification," about the way that monopoly drives mediocrity, with Google's declining quality as Exhibit A:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

It's not your imagination: Google used to be better – in every way. Search used to be better, sure, but Google used to be better as a company. It treated its workers better (for example, not laying off 12,000 workers months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years). It had its users' backs in policy fights – standing up for Net Neutrality and the right to use encryption to keep your private data private. Even when the company made ghastly mistakes, it repented of them and reversed them, like the time it pulled out of China after it learned that Chinese state hackers had broken into Gmail in order to discover which dissidents to round up and imprison.

None of this is to say that Google used to be perfect, or even, most of the time, good. Just that things got worse. To understand why, we have to think about how decisions get made in large organizations, or, more to the point, how arguments get resolved in these organizations.

We give Google a lot of shit for its "Don't Be Evil" motto, but it's worth thinking through what that meant for the organization's outcomes over the years. Through most of Google's history, the tech labor market was incredibly tight, and skilled engineers and other technical people had a lot of choice as to where they worked. "Don't Be Evil" motivated some – many – of those workers to take a job at Google, rather than one of its rivals.

Within Google, that meant that decisions that could colorably be accused of being "evil" would face some internal pushback. Imagine a product design meeting where one faction proposes something that is bad for users, but good for the company's bottom line. Think of another faction that says, "But if we do that, we'll be 'evil.'"

I think it's safe to assume that in any high-stakes version of this argument, the profit side will prevail over the don't be evil side. Money talks and bullshit walks. But what if there were also monetary costs to being evil? Like, what if Google has to worry about users or business customers defecting to a rival? Or what if there's a credible reason to worry that a regulator will fine Google, or Congress will slap around some executives at a televised hearing?

That lets the no-evil side field a more robust counterargument: "Doing that would be evil, and we'll lose money, or face a whopping fine, or suffer reputational harms." Even if these downsides are potentially smaller than the upsides, they still help the no-evil side win the argument. That's doubly true if the downsides could depress the company's share-price, because Googlers themselves are disproportionately likely to hold Google stock, since tech companies are able to get a discount on their wage-bills by paying employees in abundant stock they print for free, rather than the scarce dollars that only come through hard graft.

When the share-price is on the line, the counterargument goes, "That would be evil, we will lose money, and you will personally be much poorer as a result." Again, this isn't dispositive – it won't win every argument – but it is influential. A counterargument that braids together ideology, institutional imperatives, and personal material consequences is pretty robust.

Which is where monopoly comes in. When companies grow to dominate their industries, they are less subject to all forms of discipline. Monopolists don't have to worry about losing disgusted employees, because they exert so much gravity on the labor market that they find it easy to replace them.

They don't have to worry about losing customers, because they have eliminated credible alternatives. They don't have to worry about losing users, because rivals steer clear of their core business out of fear of being bigfooted through exclusive distribution deals, predatory pricing, etc. Investors have a name for the parts of the industry dominated by Big Tech: they call it "the kill zone" and they won't back companies seeking to enter it.

When companies dominate their industries, they find it easier to capture their regulators and outspend public prosecutors who hope to hold them to account. When they lose regulatory fights, they can fund endless appeals. If they lose those appeals, they can still afford the fines, especially if they can use an army of lawyers to make sure that the fine is less than the profit realized through the bad conduct. A fine is a price.

In other words, the more dominant a company is, the harder it is for the good people within the company to win arguments about unethical and harmful proposals, and the worse the company gets. The internal culture of the company changes, and its products and services decline, but meaningful alternatives remain scarce or nonexistent.

Back to Google. Google owns more than 90% of the search market. Google can't grow by adding more Search users. The 10% of non-Google searchers are extremely familiar with Google's actions. To switch to a rival search engine, they have had to take many affirmative, technically complex steps to override the defaults in their devices and tools. It's not like an ad extolling the virtues of Google Search will bring in new customers.

Having saturated the search market, Google can only increase its Search revenues by shifting value from searchers or web publishers to itself – that is, the only path to Search growth is enshittification. They have to make things worse for end users or business customers in order to make things better for themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

This means that each executive in the Search division is forever seeking out ways to shift value to Google and away from searchers and/or publishers. When they propose a enshittificatory tactic, Google's market dominance makes it easy for them to win arguments with their teammates: "this may make you feel ashamed for making our product worse, but it will not make me poorer, it will not make the company poorer, and it won't chase off business customers or end users, therefore, we're gonna do it. Fuck your feelings."

After all, each microenshittification represents only a single Jenga block removed from the gigantic tower that is Google Search. No big deal. Some Google exec made the call to make it easier for merchants to buy space overtop searches for their rivals. That's not necessarily a bad thing: "Thinking of taking a vacation in Florida? Why not try Puerto Rico – it's a US-based Caribbean vacation without the transphobia and racism!"

But this kind of advertising also opens up lots of avenues for fraud. Scammers clone local restaurants' websites, jack up their prices by 15%, take your order, and transmit it to the real restaurant, pocketing the 15%. They get clicks by using some of that rake to buy an ad based on searches for the restaurant's name, so they show up overtop of it and rip off inattentive users:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

This is something Google could head off; they already verify local merchants by mailing them postcards with unique passwords that they key into a web-form. They could ban ads for websites that clone existing known merchants, but that would incur costs (engineer time) and reduce profits, both from scammers and from legit websites that trip a false positive.

The decision to sell this kind of ad, configured this way, is a direct shift of value from business customers (restaurants) and end-users (searchers) to Google. Not only that, but it's negative sum. The money Google gets from this tradeoff is less than the cost to both the restaurant (loss of goodwill from regulars who are affronted because of a sudden price rise) and searchers (who lose 15% on their dinner orders). This trade-off makes everyone except Google worse off, and it's only possible when Google is the only game in town.

It's also small potatoes. Last summer, scammers figured out how to switch out the toll-free numbers that Google displayed for every airline, redirecting people to boiler-rooms where con-artists collected their credit-card numbers and sensitive personal information (passports, etc):

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/phone-numbers-airlines-listed-google-directed-scammers-rcna94766

Here again, we see a series of small compromises that lead to a massive harm. Google decided to show users 800 numbers rather than links to the airlines' websites, but failed to fortify the process for assigning phone numbers to prevent this absolutely foreseeable type of fraud. It's not that Google wanted to enable fraud – it's that they created the conditions for the fraud to occur and failed to devote the resources necessary to defend against it.

Each of these compromises indicates a belief among Google decision-makers that the consequences for making their product worse will be outweighed by the value the company will generate by exposing us to harm. One reason for this belief is on display in the DOJ's antitrust case against Google:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1328941/download

The case accuses Google of spending tens of billions of dollars to buy out the default search position on every platform where an internet user might conceivably perform a search. The company is lighting multiple Twitters worth of dollars on fire to keep you from ever trying another search engine.

Spraying all those dollars around doesn't just keep you from discovering a better search engine – it also prevents investors from funding that search engine in the first place. Why fund a startup in the kill-zone if no one will ever discover that it exists?

https://www.theverge.com/23802382/search-engine-google-neeva-android

Of course, Google doesn't have to grow Search to grow its revenue. Hypothetically, Google could pursue new lines of business and grow that way. This is a tried-and-true strategy for tech giants: Apple figured out how to outsource its manufacturing to the Pacific Rim; Amazon created a cloud service, Microsoft figured out how to transform itself into a cloud business.

Look hard at these success stories and you discover another reason that Google – and other large companies – struggle to grow by moving into adjacent lines of business. In each case – Apple, Microsoft, Amazon – the exec who led the charge into the new line of business became the company's next CEO.

In other words: if you are an exec at a large firm and one of your rivals successfully expands the business into a new line, they become the CEO – and you don't. That ripples out within the whole org-chart: every VP who becomes an SVP, every SVP who becomes an EVP, and every EVP who becomes a president occupies a scarce spot that it worth millions of dollars to the people who lost it.

The one thing that execs reliably collaborate on is knifing their ambitious rivals in the back. They may not agree on much, but they all agree that that guy shouldn't be in charge of this lucrative new line of business.

This "curse of bigness" is why major shifts in big companies are often attended by the return of the founder – think of Gates going back to Microsoft or Brin returning to Google to oversee their AI projects. They are the only execs that other execs can't knife in the back.

This is the real "innovator's dilemma." The internal politics of large companies make Machiavelli look like an optimist.

When your company attains a certain scale, any exec's most important rival isn't the company's competitor – it's other execs at the same company. Their success is your failure, and vice-versa.

This makes the business of removing Jenga blocks from products like Search even more fraught. These quality-degrading, profit-goosing tactics aren't coordinated among the business's princelings. When you're eating your seed-corn, you do so in private. This secrecy means that it's hard for different product-degradation strategists to realize that they are removing safeguards that someone else is relying on, or that they're adding stress to a safety measure that someone else just doubled the load on.

It's not just Google, either. All of tech is undergoing a Great Enshittening, and that's due to how intertwined all these tech companies. Think of how Google shifts value from app makers to itself, with a 30% rake on every dollar spent in an app. Google is half of the mobile duopoly, with the other half owned by Apple. But they're not competitors – they're co-managers of a cartel. The single largest deal that Google or Apple does every year is the bribe Google pays Apple to be the default search for iOS and Safari – $15-20b, every year.

If Apple and Google were mobile competitors, you'd expect them to differentiate their products, but instead, they've converged – both Apple and Google charge sky-high 30% payment processing fees to app makers.

Same goes for Google/Facebook, the adtech duopoly: not only do both companies charge advertisers and publishers sky-high commissions, clawing 51 cents out of every ad dollar, but they also illegally colluded to rig the market and pay themselves more, at advertisers' and publishers' expense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

It's not just tech, either – every sector from athletic shoes to international sea-freight is concentrated into anti-competitive, value-annihilating cartels and monopolies:

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

As our friends on the right are forever reminding us: "incentives matter." When a company runs out of lands to conquer, the incentives all run one direction: downhill, into a pit of enshittification. Google got worse, not because the people in it are worse (or better) than they were before – but because the constraints that discipline the company and contain its worst impulses got weaker as the company got bigger.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2023/10/23/microincentives-and-enshittification/

And here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_452/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_452_-_Microincentives_and_Enshittification.mp3

And here's my podcast's RSS feed:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast

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/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

[gauntletqueen]

That person Nintendo went after was genuinely a very very bad and exploitative scammer, some reblogs on that post go into it in detail including how taking a portion of wages is a standard way to collect fines that cannot be immediately paid in full. I dont feel bad that he received legal action, but considering the total fine is so large he might have his wages taken from for life, I do feel like Nintendo is overreaching to scare others into not trying the same thing. Which I think is a really dumb and dystopian "we have the money to fuck this one guy up real bad so you better not try the same" situation that makes me think less of the company, a company I already disliked.

Bit of a meaningless ask, sorry, just saw a lot of people thinking he was some innocent modder and Nintendo was big and evil and scary, but really Nintendo just really screwed over one bad guy way more than was necessary and it was a gross misuse of power to scare others into not messing with them. No harm meant by this, just wanted to say this to someone, if you feel differently I'd like to hear about it

First off, yes, the story is more nuanced but Nintendo still comes out the villain with how insanely severe the punishment is. Second off, this isn't a single instance, Nintendo has a long and disgusting history of fucking over fans and creators. They are a built-for-profit corporation which does everything in its power to earn more and more each year, no matter what. It has been repeatedly proven that things like piracy and fan games don't really hurt sales, and for Nintendo to crack down on it again and again shows their disregard for the consumers beyond how much money they can extract from us. This should be taken as a harsh reminder of that if nothing else. The same goes for every other corporation, but Nintendo gets away with it the most because people are blinded by nostalgia goggles and the like.

To go more in-depth, Gary Bowser wasn't a "scammer". He ran a company that made pirating hardware for consoles, including the Nintendo Switch. Their products allowed you to run pirated and homebrew software. There wasn't any scamming there, the products functioned as advertised. The problem was that they contained DRM protection, preventing others from copying the software's code. Using an unofficial cartridge would lead to bricking the console, which is definitely hypocritical. It was also faulty and could, unintentionally trigger even in the original cartridges on rare occasions when you messed with settings too much for example. So yes, that is bad, BUT obviously Nintendo doesn't give a shit about that. All they care about is that someone used a Nintendo product or IP in a fashion which they did not ordain, profit or not, and they once again acted with extreme prejudice. It's highly likely that Gary Bowser will never, ever be able to repay the massive debt to Nintendo before his death, especially considering his poor health and age will make it hard for him on the job market in general. And there is no way Nintendo's lawyers didn't realise this, it isn't to recuperate any supposed losses. It is, as you say, a scare tactic, because Nintendo's higher ups care that much more about their money-making products over a human life which they have, effectively, destroyed. Regardless of how good of a person they might be. (all this info regarding the case can be found in the articles in the post I reblogged, and articles linked in the reblogs you mentioned)

[frumfrumfroo]

(Sorry if I am belabouring the point, so feel free to ignore this ask) no yeah I'm definitely the same way and you're never wrong for having personal reasons not getting into something immediately - I think some of the fandom anxiety comes from the fact that things get cancelled so quickly without sufficient viewership (or even with sufficient viewership, which is a whole other nut). It puts a weird amount of onus of a show's success on the fandom, which is even stranger in the time of broken trust and active resentment of audiences/audience engagement with a text/trying to 'outsmart' us. But ultimately there is something severely rotting at the root that I don't think we have any control over.

And yeah the popular perception of TD season 1 is that it's grimdark because its protagonist is deeply wounded and many a fanboy is butthurt about its celebration of redemption. It's an incredibly, incredibly dark show, and so that tragic beginning is hard for a lot of people to get past, I think, when it's not the final conclusive thematic remark*. I would say that Dark is similar to this if you want an idea of the tone. Somehow we have ended up where the children's modern day fairytale is grimdark and nihilistic and shows inured in tragedy are idealistic and redemptive.

Anyway, very thankful for your blog in keeping me sane in the time of psychedelic narrative rules, and being Principled, because sometimes I feel like a stick in the mud lol.

And the asterisk is there up above because I have heard this exact description of a popular book series (A Song of Ice and Fire) and I disagree with this conclusion, partly because the series is unfinished, partly because I think the fanbase on Tumblr is overly optimistic, and also because TD has an absolute conclusion which is idealistic. So I just want to note this so it doesn't seem like I'm misrepresenting or overstating the show lololol.

It's also extremely unsavoury the way big name fans and the former twitter cabal, wherever that hangs out now, will take advantage of this anxiety and use it as a bludgeon to make a captive audience feel like they have some 'duty' to support the financial success of giant evil corporations. Giving Disney more money and bullying people for not giving Disney more money is not a moral victory, I think we should all be able to agree. Abusing calls to support artists by co-opting them into the service of mindless consumption of branded refuse is fairly repugnant. Saying 'vote with your dollars' between a choice of Disney Extruded Movie Product A, B, or C is both hilarious and sad.

eg: that tie-in comic, I think it was the TLJ one? The one with the terrible art. It's a commissioned product, the artist was paid once and as little as possible to create it for solely marketing purposes. Applying fandom etiquette to it or saying it should not be criticised because of high turnover times is frankly fucking ridiculous. It's a professional commissioned product they were selling for profit. They had all the time and all the money in the world, there's no excuse for it to be awful and absolutely no one should have felt obligated to buy it or keep quiet about how bad it was. Maybe the artist could have done better under better working conditions, but that doesn't make the actual product we're being asked to purchase acceptable. Giving Disney your money is not going to improve those conditions and it's not going to help that artist.

The same with the tros defenders saying they tried therefore you can't criticise them. A) they did not try B) this was not a sincere piece of art and pretending otherwise is just insulting and C) it's a corporate product made by a near-monopoly who employed alleged professionals. Nothing could possibly be more fair game for harsh criticism.

Ultimately putting this onus on fandom of you must throw your money away on this thing or be a free shill for this brand or maybe they'll stop throwing us any crumbs... like it's debasement. Given all the many recent examples of how public support doesn't matter unless it's that first weekend a show drops on a streaming platform or the opening box office, how being the 'wrong' audience makes you irrelevant no matter how many of you there are, how even very successful shows are dropped after two seasons because producers don't want to pay actors, etc. etc. it's even more silly. We should be demanding better, not propping up this nonsense. Creative people are being profoundly fucked over by this system and are often still fucked even if they make something successful.

If people want to support artists, buy independent and small label media. Go see original, mid-budget movies at the cinema (if you live in a city where you have any chance of one playing, that is).

And see, I have no problem with darkness, angst, and tragedy if I know it's going somewhere positive. Having to really go through it can make the journey and the ultimate conclusion feel even more rewarding. As long as it's not angst for angst's sake, but is doing something meaningful and necessary, it only enriches the hope at the foundation of redemption or recovery stories.

Idealism is brave, challenging, and requires sincerity. When the modern fairy tales are being produced in cynicism and by committee to meet a quota for the shareholders...

Thank-you ❤️

[stevensavage]

Willy’s Outsourcing Problem

So by now you’ve probably heard about the infamous Glasgow Willy Wonka ripoff event that was a dismal disaster. If somehow you remained ignorant, basically one guy generated a bunch of AI content (including a script), outsourced everything to various actors and suppliers, and it was a mess. Fyre Festival for kids, as someone put it.

As the internet united around watching and dissecting the disaster, what I found fascinating is how this happened. Not because I learned anything new, but because it seemed depressingly familiar. It was a tale of outsourcing, taken to an extreme.

Most of the news has focused on the creation of AI content by the mastermind (disastermind?) Billy Coulls. It was obviously AI generated, from creepy imagery to hilarious misspellings and nonsense words. How AI generation is just a form of automation, of basically outsourcing. It was merely the most extremely hilarious example of Coulls having anyone but him do work.

There were people hired to bring in props. People hired to act. It seems like every damn thing was outsourced and then everyone was just supposed to make it happen. Needless to say that didn’t go well, nothing happened, everything got ad libbed and there was no chocolate. Not sure how you ripoff Willy Wonka without chocolate, but there you go.

All outsourced. There was no there there, just a bunch of AI art and some guy saying “good luck” before families paid tickets for this fiasco.

This may seem extreme, but outsourcing happens all the time. If you analyze and business or product you’ll likely find some outsourcing, because sometimes you save time and money with specialists. You’ll also find outsourcing backfiring as well, with poor service, lousy computer code, or questionable media design.

If you’ve ever tried to figure out who is responsible for something and had to drill through various organizations to get an answer or a refund? You get the idea. Outsourcing isn’t an evil thing at all, but too often its used to dodge responsibility, screw employees, and not actually do anything.

At the extreme, you end up with an event that isn’t about anything, is all fake, and ultimately is a disaster. Plus it’s hard to hold someone responsible - a little more coverage and forethought and we might haven’t discovered who did the Faux-Wonka fast enough for it to hit the news cycle.

There is nothing unusual about what we saw in Glasgow, it was just incredibly obvious. Many of us have been there before. Maybe we need to ask how much of our world is outsourced, and how much of that plays into the problems we face each day.

Outsourcing isn’t bad at all - I’ve been on both sides of it. But it can be misused.

Steven Savage

www.StevenSavage.com

www.InformoTron.com

[thetreetopinn]

While I don't necessary believe this is the actual case (at least... most of the time, I do have moments where I fall into hopelessness and despair), it might make for a good writing prompt for speculative fiction.

---

It's so strange to watch the beginning of humanity's final days. To see the choices that could be made and not taken. To see those in power continue to ignore the signs and push forward to make themselves that much more disgustingly wealthy as if there's no way we can cause total ecological collapse. We avoided global thermonuclear war (for the most part, it still looms, just not as readily anymore) only to be cut down by our own use and waste of resources.

The coming generations will see their world decline year after year, and when they ask how we allowed this to happen, why we didn't stop it, why we didn't come together to prevent disaster like we did with the o-zone layer, we will be forced to answer:

"You see, there were these select few who were incredibly wealthy and it was too much trouble to take their wealth and influence away so that the rest of us could survive."

We found out what our great filter was, and the discovery was far too late for us to solve it.

It wasn't disease, though that did come about because of it. It wasn't pollution, though that was a by product that accelerated matters. It wasn't war and atomic weaponry, though those were natural outgrowths of it. It wasn't something beyond our control such as a great celestial event that blasted us back to the stone age. It wasn't divine punishment, though many believed it was, and actively sought to bring it about only to be disappointed when they were not taken to some glorious paradise in the sky.

As it turned out, the great filter was capitalism.

Money truly was the root of all evil.

And we paid for it with our extinction.