#enshitification "…is not a story about bad people. It is a story about structure. #Platforms mediate two-sided markets, can reallocate value between sides at zero cost, and once both sides are locked in, the platform’s incentives shift from serving either of them to extracting from both. The diverging of platform interests from user interests is not a failure of the platform. It is the #businessmodel.
“We just need a better platform” is not a #strategy."
https://identitywoman.net/enshittification-arises-from-enclosure-open-protocols-refuse-both/
#digitalEnclosures : "The things that should have been held as #commons — #identity, the #socialgraph, group memberships, #collectivememory, trust relationships — had no #protocollayer to hold them. The platforms of the early 2000s emerged into that gap and enclosed them. Each one drew a fence around the part of our social life it mediated and claimed property rights to what was inside. The fences went up because there was nothing to stop them." @Identitywoman
"The deeper move is to refuse the property right at the root. The #socialgraph was never LinkedIn’s to own. #Identity was never Google’s to issue. These are not facts that belong to vendors. They are facts that belong to the people, the relationships, and the #groups they describe.
The architectural form of that refusal is a #protocolsubstrate. Hold the commons as commons, in #openprotocols, so the enclosure is impossible in the first place. Build the substrate so the fence cannot be built."
