Enshittification captures a specific type of degradation - the inevitable deterioration of a product or service under an economic system that is obligated to secure ever larger profits. I like the fact that it is slightly vulgar because there is an element in this process that is revolting - the idea and acceptance that its fulfillment is guaranteed.
The vulgarity also carries with it higher odds of the term detaching from the intellectual sphere and into the common man, increasing awareness and hope of consumer pushback.
If you want to watch all of your team's games you need to a) purchase an expensive monthly cable subscription from the company that holds the football rights. b) pay a sizeable sum on top, I think it's about 50 euros per month to be able to watch the actual matches.
This is just for La Liga games, you'll need to pay extra if your team plays in other competitions.
Sure. Me too. But I also sometimes want to watch the games at a bar, with my friends. And the rate they charge bars in Europe is extortionately high. I wouldn't be surprised if those are the primary targets in this crackdown.
Would you like people who think raping 12-year-olds is fine because their prophet did it, living in your neighborhood, and going from 10% to 90% of the local population?
Some cultures are just better than others. Some are downright evil.
>I mean that is what normal people care about, too.
Depends on how you define normal. I think it's much more likely that the number of people who care about it deeply is extremely small - a small sub-group within the group of people who see gaming as their main hobby.
My sense is that frame rate is a buzzy topic for nerds to nerd out over. The same way that nerds use to nerd out over RAM. Talking about it seems like a high effort status signal. But those can be swapped out for other things easily.
Speaking from the experience of 8 acquisitions/IPOs, your compensation structure will not survive public ownership. It could survive a PE acquisition, but definitely not public ownership (in my experience). I would recommend petitioning for a dual-class share structure to protect founding leadership.
We agree that we don't know what the future holds, and what makes sense for early stage companies may not make sense for later ones. When anything stops working, we'll make changes. You can see this already with the secondary structure for sales. We have a while before we need to worry about that, though :)
You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do.
If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.
There is nothing immoral about this at all. They're the ones who chose to send people videos for free, gambling on the notion that people would look at the ads. Nobody is obligated to make their unwarranted assumptions a reality. They are as entitled to our attention as a gambler is entitled to a jackpot.
If someone gives you an ad filled magazine, you can rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, leaving only the articles you actually want to read. Same principle applies here. If some random person on the street gives you a propaganda pamphlet, are you obligated to read it just because some businessman paid for it? Of course not.
I don't use Youtube at all, but I keep thinking I'm missing out and should make the effort to find a way to circumvent tracking. I can't see that the morality points to an obligation to absorb adverts. There can be no contract on the basis of what your mind must do.
Edit: let's step through this. If I use a towel placed over the computer to block ads, that's morally the same as using blocking software, I think? If I block the ads by putting my fingers in my ears and staring at the ceiling, also the same thing, morally. If I block them by watching them in a negative frame of mind, saying that I dislike ads and won't do what they suggest, I'm still doing the bad thing, the same as using an ad blocker - if it is a bad thing. My obligation, if it is an obligation, is to be receptive. Otherwise what, it's a sort of mind-fraud?
Adding: advertisements use as many hacks as possible to grab your attention. You could broadly categorize things that behave in this way as akin to a) a baby's cries (attention-seeking by something that absolutely requires your assistance), b) an alarm (attention-seeking by something that seeks to warn you), or c) being accosted (attention-seeking by something that seeks to harm you for its own benefit). Which are advertisements most closely aligned with? Is it the same across all advertisements, or do intentions vary? People likely assign varying levels of morality to the above examples; does advertising inherit the morality of the most closely aligned example?
In full agreement with you on the flagrant incapability of a sizeable part of the HN crowd to understand and value of the arts.
Throughout history man has been celebrated and distinguished as the rational animal. As master of the earth this animal in our days dedicates its brightest minds to the continual increase of economic growth. Ask the rational man what is growth good for and after a few exchanges they perhaps will say that it ultimately improves our quality of life and even extends it. If might even allow the human race to flourish beyond earth and thus prevail long after resources on earth are depleted. But ask him then why is improving the quality of life a good thing at all? Is it just a meaningless cycle in which we improve the quality of life so that we can then improve the quality of life even further? No. Ask an individual human (in contrast to the ultra rationalist who thinks they represent the human race as a whole) what they work for, what they strive to achieve, what does quality of life ultimately mean to them and you will end up with happy times spent among family and friends. With meaningful moments listening to music, watching a film, reading a book. About time spent in creative endeavors that are totally their own. The rational animal in its hubris forgot what it thinks for and trapped itself in an endless cycle where the true meaning of being human is hidden from the sight of many.
But I think a wake up call is due very soon. The rational animal is about to discover the rationality it prides itself on was merely a sample of the true possibility. From the rational animal we have been relegated to another animal with some rational capability. As we slowly realize how futile are our attempts at thinking, we'll realize to our horror that the gift we are left with is the ability to recognize the futility and inadequacy of our attempts. Hopefully then we'll decide to retreat back into what truly makes us human, to what is ours, to what quality of life really means.
The vulgarity also carries with it higher odds of the term detaching from the intellectual sphere and into the common man, increasing awareness and hope of consumer pushback.