Sounds a lot like "enshittification" a la Cory Doctorow.
> According to Doctorow, new platforms offer useful products and services at a loss, as a way to gain new users. Once users are locked in, the platform then offers access to the userbase to suppliers at a loss, and once suppliers are locked-in, the platform shifts surpluses to shareholders. Once the platform is fundamentally focused on the shareholders, and the users and vendors are locked in, the platform no longer has any incentive to maintain quality.
Very weak association of different things with an apocalyptic tone. Some of those things being completely natural - the rise and fall of companies for exemple.
Sime meta: it bothers me, maybe unfairly, that these kind of articles get treaction because they touch some points we agree with. And we want to discuss the topics. But I think the article itself should have merit on its own to reach the front page.
It's interesting to see a post here that flips the script a little, focusing on the negative consequences of growth-at-all-costs for those attempting to create good journalism and reviews as opposed to those seeking to consume them. We don't get that perspective often on a tech-focused site like HN.
It is bizarre that new media companies are funded, staffed, and run with the expectation that they'll scale and profit on the level of successful tech companies. Original, credible content takes smart, trained people time to produce, and you can't scale the business without scaling the number of such people doing that work. You can't automate or leverage AI to cultivate trustworthy news sources or investigate a corrupt sheriff's department. I don't know what business model would work above the micro Substack-funded level, but it's clear that the one that keeps being tried never will.
7 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] thread> According to Doctorow, new platforms offer useful products and services at a loss, as a way to gain new users. Once users are locked in, the platform then offers access to the userbase to suppliers at a loss, and once suppliers are locked-in, the platform shifts surpluses to shareholders. Once the platform is fundamentally focused on the shareholders, and the users and vendors are locked in, the platform no longer has any incentive to maintain quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
users=citizens&companies,
suppliers=foreign companies,
shareholders=bureaucrats&leaders
> Our economy isn't one that produces things to be used, but things that increase usage
Sime meta: it bothers me, maybe unfairly, that these kind of articles get treaction because they touch some points we agree with. And we want to discuss the topics. But I think the article itself should have merit on its own to reach the front page.
It is bizarre that new media companies are funded, staffed, and run with the expectation that they'll scale and profit on the level of successful tech companies. Original, credible content takes smart, trained people time to produce, and you can't scale the business without scaling the number of such people doing that work. You can't automate or leverage AI to cultivate trustworthy news sources or investigate a corrupt sheriff's department. I don't know what business model would work above the micro Substack-funded level, but it's clear that the one that keeps being tried never will.