I actually find the term so refreshing. It’s so poignant and perfectly sums up the experience, but adds a twist of cynical humour.

> to describe a real and fairly obvious problem with VC backed firms striving for profitability

Not sure if intentional on your part but that really seemed written as it these firms are worthy of any kind of sympathy. They aren’t. They make a shiny new thing, running unsustainably to entice new users, with the explicit goal of making it worse later on to increase profits once it’s taken off. Enshittification is in the plan from day one, and they deserve every bit of scrutiny and criticism they get for it. Fuck em.

So predatory pricing?

And dumping... See taxi apps.

All that should have been illegal from day 8... I can give a week of promotion, but anything beyond that should always happen at cost or above.

Predatory pricing is certainly one way to enshittify, but far from the only one so I still think the umbrella term is more accurate (despite it, you know, not being a “real” word)

All I was saying is that this pattern of platforms becoming worse in the name of profit is a real problem worth talking about - but that the term used just makes me want to tune out of the discussion.

I’m not saying we should feel bad for these firms engaging in these practices.

Ah yes that was not how I read it but going back again I see that now.

I do totally get the desire for more sophisticated (no snark) phrasing, given the incredibly huge impact this phenomenon has on lives and livelihoods everywhere, but I think the crassness of it is effective, particularly in two ways: first, keeping the focus on the what (making things worse) more than the why (profit). Other terms I’ve seen like “value extraction spiral” don’t do that the same way. The second thing is it makes discussing it with a broader audience easier; when my very non-technical parents complain about how their facebook is so much worse now, I very briefly describe enshittification and they immediately just get it in a way that doesn’t happen when I talk about other industry concepts with them.

Will take a page from George Carlin on this, regarding "soft language" and euphemisms that conceal the underlying reality (e.g., Carlin's example of "shell shock" vs "PTSD", and many others...)

The reason "enshitification" hits so hard is precisely because it doesn't hold back; it's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.

Would you prefer a more sanitized term? (one that more thoroughly obscures the intent with safe and harmless language?)

I think the crassness adds some gravitas to the word. What's a good alternative? Using a "professional" word feels like being too nice to the VC culture and companies becoming hostile to their users and customers. Words have power.

I’m absolutely with you on that. The phenomenon itself is interesting and worth discussing, but that term is just so unpalatable. Also, the term doesn’t really capture the meaning well. Ideally the word would semantically suggest the user-hostile and total capture of value, rather than just the process of becoming unpleasant.

You could call it something like the hostility spiral or value extraction spiral, but those terms don't really capture the experience of being a user on these platforms. Save them for polite company, I guess.

It’s the kind of term a bunch of nerdy kids would come up with, snorting and giggling at how clever they are. This is more or less the level at which Doctorow operates.

I think the term affords the proper level of respect for those who enshittify their platforms.

Nah, it's fine. It's a single word, meaning is mostly clear from context, but reading the original article is good too.

Frankly, it's refreshing to have bad products seen for what they are, instead of listening to the "experts"' MBA drivel about product-market fit and user engagement.

Maybe if tech companies didn't use the exact same playbook, we could have a term with more nuance.

Yes, I was going to make the same comment. Fully sick of seeing it. It's silly and just detracts from any legitimate argument that might be there.

The word is icky, but so are the practices it describes. So I like the connotation denotation match.

I like it because it doesn't sugar coat the issue

The biggest annoyance for me is that it is if this wasn't the goal from the start...

Whole operations were build on unsustainable models. And when finally we run out of "free" money the next steps are obvious.

Not that there isn't profitable companies that just strive for even more profits, but those are again driven by the system itself.

And the fact that usually the term is just dropped in the conversation. And no actually realistic solution or alternative is even provided.

> And the fact that usually the term is just dropped in the conversation. And no actually realistic solution or alternative is even provided.

Description of an issue doesn't necessarily require resolving the issue. It's ok to raise the issue without already having a proposed answer for it. I don't know where it is written that you can't raise an issue unless you also propose a fix for it.

To be fair, I'm rather glad people don't generally do that... too many armchair XXXXs already that claim to have an answer for everything

The crassness in the terminology feels... somewhat appropriate for the phenomenon.

The experience is an extremely unpleasant, and it would be nice for users to recognize it as such -- so they avoid repeating the cycle of network effects + value extraction, so we have a chance to build sustainable platforms which don't take control away from users.

Revenue-Motivated Quality Degradation (RMQD) doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.