Here is how #platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys
1/
@pluralistic Has anyone correlated enshittification with changes in the management structure of platforms?
I've seen a bunch of tech companies started by technologists -- nerds -- who were passionate about what they made and who attracted equally passionate users. But as the company grew, the MBAs and professional CEOs were brought in, and everything changed.
Few companies probably begin with enshittification as a goal. But at a given point incentives, focus and management all start to shift.
@angusm @pluralistic I've never heard it described in exactly those terms, but yes there's a pretty good understanding in the US tech industry that when a startup transitions from being founder-led to outside-CEO-led, that it's a major transition and many don't thrive afterwards.
I don't think this is necessarily because the CEOs are incompetent, but because their priorities are not the founders' priorities. They generally are brought in by the company board (i.e. the investors) to ensure the investors get paid out, and to plan an "exit": typically either a sale to another company or an IPO.
Since cutting expenses is generally seen as the fastest way to profitability (this is practically doctrinal in US business schools), often the first thing they do is make cuts: to hiring, to workforce, to benefits. consolidating offices, etc. And that usually drives some of the better technologists (who can easily find other jobs) away for greener pastures, other startups, etc.
Cory Doctorow
Angus McIntyre
Kadin