Enshittification does not mean making things suck in general. It specifically means the business model of making a good product for users, then making the product bad for users and good for advertisers or data purchasers or retailers or whatever, and then when you have a captured market, making it worse for everyone to squeeze more money faster.
Microsoft is not doing this. They might be sucking, and making a worse product, but it’s not following the enshittification playbook.
Reinserted US propaganda? Like the ability to talk about Tianamen Square? Man, Chinese propaganda is the worst. Fuck off back to .ml with that.
Yeah, not surprised to see the .ml after your name, tankie.
Did you know that elevator operator used to be a job that people had to be employed to do? No one says hiring a person to operate an elevator is more cost effective than installing a push button system for people to do it themselves. The cost really wasn’t prohibitive to move away from human labor here.
This is not the only case, I’m just bringing up an example. The thing is, when a job is replaced by technology, you don’t even think about it anymore. Yes, there are also jobs that CAN be replaced by technology, where the tech is more expensive… but that’s not the rule, that’s just the leading edge.
Some key software I need to use doesn’t work on Linux, and is unlikely to be able to in the near future, sorry. I did use Linux for a while, mind you, and I more or less like it… but a computer is only useful if it runs the software you need to do the things you want to do with it.
I don’t want to downgrade to windows 11, but I’m going to be forced to. And to even do that I’m going to need to bypass the hardware authenticator, as I’m apparently ever so slightly behind their so-called minimum requirements, which aren’t really minimum requirements but just a push to get me to buy a new PC I don’t need.
I actually don’t think this is true. I used to think it was true, but after seeing more and more people I think it’s simpler than that. It’s a belief in the justness of hierarchy— the “great chain of being” from medieval thought, where people on the top both deserve to be there by right of being there, and it is right to submit to them.
On a certain level, I even see the point. Despite anarchist clams to the contrary, leaders are important, necessary even to accomplish anything greater than a single person can manage. Even kids can see this first hand the first time they get assigned a group project by their teacher, or try to win a game of sports. But it’s too easy to twist “we need a good leader” into the tautology of “the leader is good, right, and justified because he’s the leader”.
If everyone rebelled against leadership all the time, there’d be no leadership, and people do need leaders. But at the same time, leaders can be or become shitstains that need to be rebelled against. It’s difficult, and I don’t think being reductive about the difficulty is right.