Enshittification

1627 readers

2 users here now

What is enshittification?

The phenomenon of online platforms gradually degrading the quality of their services, often by promoting advertisements and sponsored content, in order to increase profits. (Cory Doctorow, 2022, extracted from Wikitionary) source

The lifecycle of Big Internet

We discuss how predatory big tech platforms live and die by luring people in and then decaying for profit.

Embrace, extend and extinguish

We also discuss how naturally open technologies like the Fediverse can be susceptible to corporate takeovers, rugpulls and subsequent enshittification.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

hydra

331

YouTube before vs. after massive corporate, profit-driven enshittification (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/enshittification

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It seems like the current management is actively trying to find new ways to make the platform worse. It’s like a long train of bad decisions that most users somehow tolerate.

[–] laughing_hard 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree. YouTube is only running by the fact, that the content creators are only there. If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

If there was another platform with comparable content and creators, i.e. a real competitor, YT would disintegrate immediately.

And why are content creators on YouTube? Because it offers the option to monetize as good video creation requires time and effort that you could put into a job otherwise - not only a single person's, mind you. The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn't a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification, probably even rightfully so - but you can't have a platform paying out the creators without getting anything from the users, be it a subscription fee or delivering ads.

I feel the criticism about this is somewhat misguided here, compared to things like operating systems - Windows has no needed to get worse, it had a sustainable business model, but corporate greed dictated changes for increased monetization. For YouTube, it was clear from the very beginning - or latest when Google bought it - that the business in that form isn't sustainable and that it only exists to accumulate users until they decide it's time to get an RoI.

Google has invested a shocking amount of money into the platform, both to make it attractive to (professional) content creators, but also on a technical front - the amount of data they store, process and deliver is unimaginable.

I'd love it to be different, but I totally understand why this is happening, and see it rather as a turn towards an honest business; and if alternatives ever have a chance, it's during times like these. Before, YouTube couldn't be defeated because of virtually unlimitedly deep pockets of Alphabet.

I don't think we'll see commercial rivals to this as the investment is very high, but maybe a surge of Peertube or similar comparable to what Mastodon and Lemmy are to their respective services.

[–] laughing_hard 2 points 4 months ago

You made some good points and I agree, that YouTube has to make money. It is a business after all. Still some decisions make it shittier than it was before for consumers and creators (imo at least):

I am not a content creator myself, but the current algorithms and model seem to make it hard for new creators to get any attention and monetize their content.

On the other hand, I feel the UX for consumers gets worse, especially since it is harder to find new, widely unknown content. But I don't know if it is better for subscribers, since I never subscribed.

Still I hope any competitor arises, may it be peer tube or some other platform. But you are probably right, without a big investment that is not going to happen soon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The monetization however only works if money is to be made on users, this wasn’t a problem for years because of Google / Alphabet subsidizing YouTube, but in the end, a service should make money either directly or indirectly. And this is what the changes are about. This however is perceived as enshittification,

It's true, but it's still enshittification because they offered one quality of service and then downgraded it to another level entirely. Many companies have done this and I'd even say that it's planned enshittification. You start out by providing something financially unsustainable, such as (relatively) ad-free high-quality video streaming. You do it so well that you drive everyone else out of business. THEN you either raise prices or force more ads and tracking.

[–] NocturnalMorning 4 points 4 months ago

The latest in a string of bad decisions, a layout update that is annoying and makes no sense.

[–] takeda 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Enshitification. Once they cornered the market and killed competition they tried to squeeze it. What you going to do, leave? Where?

Actually there's an app that tries to turn this around and remove their monopoly by combining multiple streaming platforms into one: https://grayjay.app/ the more people would use it the less they would be able to do this without consequences

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hell no, I'm not spending money on "source-available" software made by a million dollar company. An application that doesn't even manage to put an open-source license on its source code is not worth my money. I'm happily donating to actual FOSS projects, but this isn't one. There are many free & open source alternatives like NewPipe (and forks like Tubular) and LibreTube, why use this source-available bullshit? It's fucking ridiculous, Louis Rossmann has spent so much time talking about and advocating for open source software, and then he heavily promotes a source-available product.

[–] MotoAsh 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hey, he's not a developer. He doesn't know the nuances between ACTUAL FOSS and "source available", nor the VAST GULF of differences.

His heart is in the right place. ... but still, definitely go for real FOSS (not just OSS).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Louis Rossmann isn't a developer, but the company he works with (FUTO) was founded by an experienced software developer, and employs multiple devs for their projects like Grayjay, Futo VoiceInput, their android keyboard and other stuff. Not using a FOSS license is an intentional choice, which is why I'm not giving them my money. They should really stop their "source-available paid software license" bullshit, just make it truly FOSS and I'll happily donate.

And btw I'm pretty sure that Louis realizes the differences between source-available and FOSS, he's a smart man.

[–] MotoAsh 1 points 3 months ago

If he realizes the difference, he should push for full FOSS.