Seriously though, I do think that it’s interesting that this comic and that essay seem to take up opposite positions*, but in each case they attract more contrary comments than ones that agree. I suppose no matter what you post, any given person is more likely to comment on it if it pisses them off than if it confirms their beliefs. It’s a good thing Lemmy doesn’t reward engagement, or else we’d be up to our eyeballs in ragebait, eh?
*Unless you read the whole thing instead of bouncing off the first paragraph.
fair point, but to get there you must go to the comments to begin with, which I believe might be less likely you do when you don’t have something to say.
That’s just false, and is also not the message of the article you linked.
The articles point is not that avoiding enshittification won’t make a difference in the amount of enshittification you experience: To the contrary, it affirms that it likely will! The articles point is that personally avoiding enshittification isn’t an effective way of combatting the ubiquity of enshittification in society, ie “consumer activism” and “voting with your dollars” cannot create system change.
Most everyone here already knows this, and I imagine you also understood the article just fine and don’t need me explaining it to you, but you botched the paraphrase in your link thus seeding a lot of potential confusion and frustration absent some clarification. This is intentionally a thread about personally avoiding enshittification, and that does not imply a rejection of the desire to also end it oestebsibly by other means.
I hate to break it to you, but your personal consumption choices will not make a meaningful difference to the amount of enshittification you experience in your life.
What a fantastic post, thank you for linking it!
Seriously though, I do think that it’s interesting that this comic and that essay seem to take up opposite positions*, but in each case they attract more contrary comments than ones that agree. I suppose no matter what you post, any given person is more likely to comment on it if it pisses them off than if it confirms their beliefs. It’s a good thing Lemmy doesn’t reward engagement, or else we’d be up to our eyeballs in ragebait, eh?
*Unless you read the whole thing instead of bouncing off the first paragraph.
on the other hand, there is generally not much to discuss if you have an agreeing position. right?
Sure, but where are the comments disagreeing with the disagree-ers? It’s all attack, no defense.
fair point, but to get there you must go to the comments to begin with, which I believe might be less likely you do when you don’t have something to say.
Did you read it till the end?
Yes: We need structural remedies, not individuals opting out. But please tell me what your implied “gotcha” is supposed to be.
That’s just false, and is also not the message of the article you linked.
The articles point is not that avoiding enshittification won’t make a difference in the amount of enshittification you experience: To the contrary, it affirms that it likely will! The articles point is that personally avoiding enshittification isn’t an effective way of combatting the ubiquity of enshittification in society, ie “consumer activism” and “voting with your dollars” cannot create system change.
Most everyone here already knows this, and I imagine you also understood the article just fine and don’t need me explaining it to you, but you botched the paraphrase in your link thus seeding a lot of potential confusion and frustration absent some clarification. This is intentionally a thread about personally avoiding enshittification, and that does not imply a rejection of the desire to also end it oestebsibly by other means.