Matthew E
Mike Masnick ✅Following on @pluralistic's brilliant article about the "enshittification" process of companies, I added in something that I thought was missing from Cory's analysis: the role of "The Friedman Doctrine" that the only thing companies should work for are maximizing profits for shareholders... and highlighting how that leaves out not just other stakeholders, but the important variable of "over what time frame."
Tim Hergert@mmasnick @pluralistic "Enshittification"
Shoq 🌿This was my favorite article this year. Since In Search of Excellence" in the 80s the Right has been fabricating cultural, Friedmanesque narratives about free enterprise, relentlessly, and with religious fervor.
Shows like Marketplace endlessly reinforce false narratives that have become operative tropes from one end of he business cycle to the other. My dad, an economist once said of Friedman, "he sincerely believes the hungry can live on libertarian rhetoric alone."
🇨🇦 TRH 🇨🇦@mmasnick @pluralistic I think "shareholers" was a typo, but oh so good! 😁
@Mayor_of_Smartarse @pluralistic oh man. definitely a typo, and one I was reluctant to fix... but still had to fix.
APT Ate My Homework
Jens IMOUT
ted byfield@mmasnick @pluralistic “over what time frame” is 🎯. That’s close to my view on privatization for years now: cool, fine, sounds great, whatever — how about if we do it in, oh, 50 or 60 years? No need for any further debate: when ideologues lose their imagined windfall, they lose interest in the idea.
Dr James J TeethOne thing I would like to have seen is an explicit call out that a lot of executives are heavily compensated in stock. Not only are they pressured by Wall Street for short term profits, but they also have a personal financial incentive in pushing that system.
T. Austin Brown@jimgon @mmasnick @pluralistic this is an odd problem. Executive compensation in stock should be an incentive to preserve the long-term value of the shares, but for a variety that’s not the result we see.
@jimgon @mmasnick @pluralistic *variety of reasons. I should really finish my coffee before posting.
@AustinB @mmasnick @pluralistic
Stock can be sold and the proceeds turned into more diversified investments. Never mind just being cash wealthy.
@AustinB @mmasnick @pluralistic
So they should maximize the short term stock price to make the most of those sales opportunities.
kingdom krumb@mmasnick @pluralistic This encapsulates a lot of things I've been thinking about. If Wikipedia were a public company it would be trying to get us to shop and bank through their site by now. Instead it just remains awesome.
ideaPDish@kingdomkrumb @mmasnick @pluralistic
agree.. Wiki++
So what happens when ChatAIBOT get's it's claws on it and it starts writing false or misleading artickes in an authoritive way.?.
agree.. Wiki++
So what happens when ChatAIBOT get's it's claws on it and it starts writing false or misleading artickes in an authoritive way.?.
@ipd @mmasnick @pluralistic I don't know. But my prediction is that AI will be used both by those trying to undermine it and by those trying to protect it.
@kingdomkrumb @mmasnick @pluralistic
Discodains vs illuminatis.. a classic tail. one group makes dry clothes wet and the other make wet clothes dry....
Now at the speed of bots.
(jetson robot rosie sigh noise)
@kingdomkrumb @mmasnick @pluralistic
I miss the days when google would return the same items whenever I searched on specific terms, deterministic, it was called.
I miss the days when google would return the same items whenever I searched on specific terms, deterministic, it was called.
Domestic Supply 
@kingdomkrumb @ipd @mmasnick @pluralistic I was an early contributor to Wikipedia, I still occasionally provide small updates. I'm currently exploring some ways to use AI to improve it.
Mike Garuccio@ipd @kingdomkrumb @mmasnick @pluralistic
In a contest of AI vs Wikipedia editors I’ll take the editors any day.
Bunnyjadwiga@mmasnick @pluralistic I've believed this for years but felt vaguely conspiracy theorist about it (or maybe Only Sane Man) because most people didn't believe it, or the corollary that in the modern market, no matter what a public company makes, it's actual business becomes producing stocks & other financial instruments.
BduzBoop@mmasnick @pluralistic Friedman the original Greed is Good guy.
William Robison@mmasnick @pluralistic I have always found the Friedman Doctrine short sighted and ultimately counterproductive. It has over time eroded trust that there was some sort of an ethical standard of "fare play".
Everyone understands that a company needs to make a fare profit. When a company cheats a customer, it loses the customer. Along with anyone that listens to them.
At some point hyper capitalism will face diminishing returns.
Steven KinCannon 🇵🇸@mmasnick @pluralistic capitalism is poison.
@stevenkincannon @pluralistic I don't think that's a fair statement either. Just a very simplistic, childlike view of capitalism.
@mmasnick @pluralistic I stand by my statement and I think it's immature not to understand that capitalism is a scourge whose time has run out. It is responsible for any major social ill you'd care to imagine and many you'd like very much not to think about.
@stevenkincannon @pluralistic Cool. Enjoy.
Nick Bax@mmasnick I’m curious how you square Zuckerberg and Meta into that, given that Zuckerberg has a majority of the voting stock and he doesn’t have to follow the Friedman Doctrine.
It might just be that he does, without having to do so?
It’s also interesting how Twitter keeps chugging along with less than half the staff. I wonder if meta could do that, and just make more money? Especially if they chose to outsource more development to outside developers connecting in apps. (In an honest way.)
microtherion@mmasnick @nickbax I believe at Alphabet, the founders also retain a majority of the voting stock. And with Twitter, the public ownership definitely had a major role in the decision to sell the company, but it would be hard to argue that things have not worsened significantly since the company went private.
I had the same concern when I read the article — “Wall Street” may play a smaller role here than it’s credited for.
David ThomsonThis is very good. And seems appropriate as a first mastodon post.
And I havent figured out how to quote, so here’s the link.
Sam@mmasnick @pluralistic Part of the theory behind ESG investing is that companies with higher ESG ratings (ie those that don’t focus purely on short term shareholder returns) will tend to have better long term health and therefore better returns over the long term. Unfortunately, if you try to put that into practice Texas will sue you for being too woke. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-20/texas-esg-fight-with-wall-street-puts-glenn-hegar-in-spotlight
Cory DoctorowRegrettably, #ESG is a fraud-riddled #MarketForLemons:
https://pluralistic.net/2021/03/24/greenwashing/#bargaining
https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/26/aggregate-demand/#murder-offsets
https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/17/do-well-do-good-do-nothing/#greenwashing
https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/11/a-market-for-flaming-lemons/#money-for-nothing
https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#profiteers
KOS-MOS@mmasnick @pluralistic
If someone wants to work within the system to improve it:
1. Pass the INDEX Act^
2. Prohibit or severely limit welfare to companies with dual-class shares; one share is one vote
^Voting and corporate material access needs to be online-only, or else expense ratios are going to explode.
If someone wants to work within the system to improve it:
1. Pass the INDEX Act^
2. Prohibit or severely limit welfare to companies with dual-class shares; one share is one vote
^Voting and corporate material access needs to be online-only, or else expense ratios are going to explode.
@mmasnick @pluralistic This article should be required reading for the entire United States. !
sam@mmasnick as a corporate lawyer, this has been a bugaboo of mine for ages. First “best interests of the company” got rewritten as “bests interests of the shareholders” and then that got warped into “best interests of short term holders who only care about pumping the stock”. From the other site:
Andrew H – № 2025@mmasnick @pluralistic this makes a ton of sense and slots into another pattern that lots of things follow: innovation ☞ popularization ☞ saturation ☞ stagnation. Each arrow is a driver for enshittification where “stagnation” is that final dead state. Luckily stagnation usually loops back around… and opens things up
Waldo Jaquith@mmasnick There is a slim, academic work I read this month on this topic that I recommend highly: “The Shareholder Value Myth,” by Lynn Stout. In short, there is no law, precedent, regulation, or policy that requires maximizing shareholder value. It’s a myth promulgated in the 1990s. And, on even a cursory inspection, this supposed doctrine completely collapses. https://www.amazon.com/Shareholder-Value-Myth-Shareholders-Corporations/dp/1605098132/
sirshannon