YouTube disallowing adblockers, Reddit charging for API usage, Twitter blocking non-registered users. These events happen almost at the same time. Is this one of the effects of the tech bubble burst?

  • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish we lived in a society where not everything needed to be profitable. People deserve treats and sucks to have things that made our lives better go awake because shareholders demand money

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think we’d see loads of improvements if the philosophy went from “be as profitable as possible” to “just be profitable”. You’re 15% lower than last year, but still profiting? That’s just a smaller bonus for all employees and a smaller dividend for the investors, after putting a healthy amount of it into savings.

      There’s no concept of “enough”. That’s the big problem. It goes for both economics and career advancement. There doesn’t always have to be a “higher”. It’s okay to say “it isn’t worth it to go further”.

    • tool@r.rosettast0ned.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think the problem is so much profitability as it is the demand/expectation for endless growth. It becomes a positive feedback loop and is completely unsustainable after a certain point.

      You know what else is endless growth? Cancer.

    • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whether we like the ongoing enshittification of Reddit or not, I think it’s fair that shareholders expect a return on their investment and they have the right to pressure spez to seek aggressive monetization of the platform.

      That problem wouldn’t have existed if Reddit was a non-profit though, like the Wikimedia Foundation.

      • hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        expect a return on their investment and they have the right to pressure spez to seek aggressive monetization of the platform.

        Whilst I agree that investors have everybright to expect a return on investment I think this could have been resolved and a number of ways which didn’t include alienating a large proportion of the user base.

        • darthsid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly I’m tired of all these capitalism apologists. The aim is to innovate, there must be a more decent way to monetise or profit. If pursuing such hardline tactics means profitable at the expense of your customers and enshitification of your platform, I’d urge you to reconsider your business setup.

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The capitalism apologist is going to tell you that this is necessary for innovation as Venture Capital firms fund 100 start-ups of which 99 fail to turn a profit, and thus the 1 that does has to make up for the other 99 by making extreme profits.

            But that that is just as flawed logic as thinking that there can be a “decent” capitalism that doesn’t destroy everything in its path in its pursuit of profit. If you are trying to be “decent” you will be out-competed by someone else under the current economic setup.

            • Steve@compuverse.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The modern Neoliberal capitalist philosophy of shareholders being the only priority, isn’t the only capitalist philosophy.

              The Embedded liberalism after the new deal, worked quite well. Since the employees are making the products, and management is making the decisions, while the shareholders don’t directly make anything for the company; People understood that the shareholders were the last priority, in getting profits. It’s why worker wages scaled with productivity until the 80s.

              That’s when the Neoliberal capitalist philosophy took hold and gained power. First the Republicans with Regan, then Democrats with Clinton, then the global economy, since so much of it is driven by the US.

              • SolarNialamide@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right, to some extent, but you have to ask yourself why neoliberalism took hold and gained power. The problem with social democracy, even though it’s the best version of a shitty economic system, is that it’s still capitalism and at some point greedy assholes are going to want more, and will start influencing politics to get what they want. That’s why neoliberalism became a thing, despite the succes of social democracy/embedded liberalism for the 99%, because there still was a 1% with much more power and influence. Neoliberalism was a planned and calculated attack on social democracy decades in the making by groups like the Mont Pelerin Society and individuals like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Reagan was just a public symptom of this disease under the surface. If you keep capitalism in place in any way, it will always eventually trend towards it’s natural endpoint of 0.01% being obscenely, unfathomably rich and the rest getting fucked over in every possible way.

                • Bautznersenf@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “0.01% being obscenely, unfathomably rich and the rest getting fucked over in every possible way.”

                  Sounds more like Soviet Russia and its satellite states.

          • EdgeOfToday@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think the problem is earning a profit, the problem is the need to earn even more profit than last year. Investors aren’t content to buy into a company like Reddit just to let it continue in a steady state. They want to double their money in a few years and then cash out. They don’t care if they destroy a valuable service that many people enjoy.

          • bodmcjones@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think in part there’s an essential misunderstanding of current events at the core of Reddit’s behaviour (not yours, I mean - spez/investors/etc).

            Historically the rule was supposed to be ‘if it’s free, you’re the product’, which is to say that our attention (and profiles and demographics) were on sale to advertisers. The big recent development is someone figuring out, or thinking they’ve figured out, how to monetise us a different way - specifically, by using the things we create as training data for AI. A sensible organisation would continue to balance these two possible cash flows and, since both really require user retention to remain profitable in the long run, seek a middle ground. But the perception is that there’s more money in the training data than there is in the user attention, so they focus on maximising that and spit on the users. The obvious consequence is that they lose users and their source of training data dries up.