Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#91

Post by piva00 »

keiferski wrote: post #20
piva00 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academics are completely free to rebrand the naming if they need to sound more pompous and serious, the semantics are the same.

It has nothing to do with being pompous, and this attitude is precisely why none of these solutions will ever go anywhere. If you want laws to be passed, you need senators and judges and legal scholars to engage with your ideas. None of those people are going to take the idea of “enshittification” seriously with a name like that, nor are they going to put their name on a bill referencing it. There are plenty of examp…

Of course it has to do with appearances, hence "pompous and serious", requiring a term change just so it can be taken "seriously" because the portmanteau sounds too crass or colloquial. It's all appearances, the underlying concept if it's called "enshittification" or "rot", "decay", etc. is the exact same, it's just that "enshittification" sounds too crass for a class of people to be allowed to use in their serious business.

It's not about communication, since for communication sake it's much more easily understood by a larger cohort of people if colloquial terms are used, it's simply the need for seriously-sounding jargon to be taken seriously, which is just a play in appearances.

If you want political change you need political action, the name of concepts is just one avenue for that.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#92

Post by keiferski »

piva00 wrote: post #91
keiferski wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with being pompous, and this attitude is precisely why none of these solutions will ever go anywhere. If you want laws to be passed, you need senators and judges and legal scholars to engage with your ideas. None of those people are going to take the idea of “enshittification” seriously with a name like that, nor are they going to put their name on a bill referencing it. There are plenty of examp…

Of course it has to do with appearances, hence "pompous and serious", requiring a term change just so it can be taken "seriously" because the portmanteau sounds too crass or colloquial. It's all appearances, the underlying concept if it's called "enshittification" or "rot", "decay", etc. is the exact same, it's just that "enshittification" sounds too crass for a class of people to be allowed to use in their serious b…

...for a class of people to be allowed to use in their serious business.

Yes, and that class of people are the ones actually making the laws. The ones that could solve the problems discussed in the article (like nursing apps) legally.

Which is, I assume, actually the point.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#93

Post by fsflover »

octo888 wrote: post #82
croes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would violate privacy laws. They could put it into the contract but they would be void

I don't agree. Which laws? Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. A similar thing happened with the Working Time Directive - almost all contracts in my country make you agree to opt-out and that's been like that for over 15 years

> Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR.

AFAIK the company must make it opt-in, non-mandatory and provide a way to change your mind at any moment.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#94

Post by biorach »

sneak wrote: post #83
whinvik wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, what I think should be made illegal is to take advantage of people by using information about how much debt that they have to lowball them.

Yes, why? This is the market working as it should. Market participants should be free to use all available information. The lowballing should be counteracted by competition. There isn’t any competition because the number of hospitals is artificially constrained by the state and a cartel can go to all of them in a region (usually a single digit number) and capture all of them, cornering the market for purchasing labor…

Exploitation of the indebted is a symptom that should be addressed regardless.

Plus I think your diagnosis is simplistic.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#95

Post by like_any_other »

rwmj wrote: post #77
Mindwipe wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That raises the question of why these countries don't repeal their versions of the DMCA. > The answer is tariffs, it seems. No it isn't. Like literally, the US and it's tariff madness has literally nothing to do with it. The EU and Canada are both signatories to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and signatories of the WTO provisions that include continued operation to it. They are international treaties with a wide degree…

Because of course we can never change international treaties.

They can be, but the point remains that it is not US tariffs forcing Europe into them - it is the doing of their own governments (whose preferences should not be confused with those of their citizens).

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#96

Post by Mindwipe »

like_any_other wrote: post #75
Mindwipe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would effectively have to exit all international copyright law treaties to do so, which is defacto removing any international recognition of copyright for works from your country.

Copyright is covered by the Berne convention, which prohibits neither circumvention nor reverse-engineering, so even in this "what you're proposing couldn't easily be done without also doing this other thing, so I'm going to pretend you've proposed that other thing also, but I won't say so explicitly" interpretation, that is not true.

The Berne Convention has been modified multiple times, including by the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which incorporates a requirement for all signatories to implement an anti-circumvention law.

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#97

Post by conartist6 »

keiferski wrote: post #36
ikr678 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a bit of projection on your part, not everyone is scared of naughty words. It was the Australian word of the year in 2024 and appears in our senate hearing transcripts.

It has nothing to do with my own personal opinion on vulgar words. It's a basic understanding of how the political system works. The name of a political movement matters. Always has, always will. It's no different for adjacent concepts that describe a phenomenon the movement is organizing against.

There's nothing more powerful than using the real word for how the companies are treating us.

Like shit.

The word spread in common usage about as fast as wildfire because everyone immediately knew what he meant. And the companies are too polite to even be able to say the word! If you can't swear in response to being degraded, pissed on, pissed off, used and thrown away, then you're the kind of sheep they want that they can abuse more and more and more and more and more and more and more without ever facing any consequence.

God forbid that rudeness is involved in collecting the power to stand up to it

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#98

Post by keiferski »

Propelloni wrote: post #51
keiferski wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with my own personal opinion on vulgar words. It's a basic understanding of how the political system works. The name of a political movement matters. Always has, always will. It's no different for adjacent concepts that describe a phenomenon the movement is organizing against.

I think I get your meaning, but it cuts both ways. The angsty populists of today celebrate the transgression, ie. showing bad manners, dumbing down language, or flaunting low concepts. Giving something a derogatory name that the yellow press (or rather some Telegram group) can sling around to vent their frustration and fear could be a win in this place. Of course, leadership persons of such groups are usually just de…

I can see this angle, and agree it can be useful as a word to center frustration around. But I don’t think that actually leads to real political change.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#99

Post by gampleman »

octo888 wrote: post #82
croes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would violate privacy laws. They could put it into the contract but they would be void

I don't agree. Which laws? Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. A similar thing happened with the Working Time Directive - almost all contracts in my country make you agree to opt-out and that's been like that for over 15 years

That's not how European courts have been interpreting it. When they say "free consent" they do mean free as in beer, so a "consent or loose your job" provisions would almost certainly be thrown out.

Re: Cory Doctorow on how we lost the internet

#100

Post by conartist6 »

jocoda wrote: post #9

> "He believes that changes to the policy environment is what has led to enshittification, not changes in technology." This is the root cause, and as it looks, there is no cure.

I think it stems from there not being enough engineers. In aggregate, companies have been able to take over the market for engineering labor and ensure that the only good-paying jobs on the job market at any given time are working for companies that want to use engineers to corner some consumer market so that they can enshittify it.

The cure is to make so much new engineering talent that this is simply impossible

Post reply on HN