A page out of a medieval hand-illuminated grimoire; it is an illustration of a tree, with each branch terminating in a demon; these branches are annotated in an unknown script. The demons have been replaced with 19th century caricatures of shouting millionaire industrialists.

This week on my podcast, I’m reading “Enshittification isn’t caused by venture capital,” the latest post from my Pluralistic.net blog. It’s about the new “Free Our Feeds” project and why I think the existence of Mastodon doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to making Bluesky as free as possible.

When tech critics fail to ask why good services turn bad, that failure is just as severe as the failure to ask why people stay when the services rot.

Now, the guy who ran Facebook when it was a great way to form communities and make friends and find old friends is the same guy who who has turned Facebook into a hellscape. There’s very good reason to believe that Mark Zuckerberg was always a creep, and he took investment capital very early on, long before he started fucking up the service. So what gives? Did Zuck get a brain parasite that turned him evil? Did his investors get more demanding in their clamor for dividends?

If that’s what you think, you need to show your working. Again, by all accounts, Zuck was a monster from day one. Zuck’s investors – both the VCs who backed him early and the gigantic institutional funds whose portfolios are stuffed with Meta stock today – are not patient sorts with a reputation for going easy on entrepreneurs who leave money on the table. They’ve demanded every nickel since the start.

What changed? What caused Zuck to enshittify his service? And, even more importantly for those of us who care about the people locked into Facebook’s walled gardens: what stopped him from enshittifying his services in the “good old days?”

MP3

Will China’s zero-covid policy reversal provide a boon to emerging markets in 2023?