Jeff Bezos, the visionary founder of Amazon, once shared a profound insight that resonates deeply with me: stress isn't born from hard work itself, but from the avoidance of crucial, unresolved tasks ["Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on why he thinks stress is a warning for him that he has not …" (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/amazon-founder-jeff-bezos-on-why-he-thinks-stress-is-a-warning-for-him-that-he-has-not-/articleshow/125013738.cms)]. He emphasized that identifying an issue and taking the first small step, like a phone call or an email, can dramatically reduce anxiety. This perspective, focusing on proactive engagement over procrastination, offers a powerful lens through which to view not just our personal lives, but also the broader landscape of our digital existence, which often feels like a constant source of unaddressed stress.
Lately, I've found myself reflecting on this idea, especially in the context of what author Cory Doctorow describes as the "enshittification" of the internet. As highlighted in a recent interview with Sarah Jeong for The Verge ["How Silicon Valley enshittified the internet | The Verge" (https://www.theverge.com/podcast/809081/enshittification-cory-doctorow-platforms-ai-monopoly-big-tech-interview)], Doctorow eloquently describes a three-stage process: platforms first serve users to gain lock-in, then exploit users for business customers, and finally exploit business customers for their own shareholders. The result? A digital environment that feels increasingly 'shitty'. We see this in the declining quality of platforms, a phenomenon Cory has been observing for years, noting a significant turning point around 2017 with the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) decision regarding digital rights management (DRM), which he felt was a disheartening shift away from user-centric technology.
Facebook, under the continuous leadership of Mark Zuckerberg, stands as a prime example of this decay. Cory Doctorow points out that despite Zuckerberg always being a 'rotten guy,' as Sarah Wynn-Williams' memoir Careless People suggests (Facebook has reportedly tried to halt its publication), Facebook initially thrived by attracting users away from platforms like MySpace, once owned by Rupert Murdoch (rupert.murdoch@foxnews.com). The platform's subsequent trajectory, marked by increasing ad fraud, demanding more content from publishers without adequate compensation, and then pivoting to grand, often ill-fated ventures like the Metaverse, perfectly illustrates Doctorow's 'enshittification' model. This erosion of value is a source of collective stress for us all.
The core idea I want to convey is this — take a moment to notice that I had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. I had already predicted this outcome or challenge, and I had even proposed a solution at the time. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context.
This isn't just about individual platforms becoming worse; it's about a systemic failure of discipline. As I've argued for years, particularly regarding the need for a "Digital Dividend from Demographic Data [4 D]" ["Mark Zuckerberg Wants Facebook to be Treated Like 'Something Between a Telco and a Newspaper'" (http://mylinkedinposting.blogspot.com/2020/02/something-between-telco-and-newspaper.html)], the unchecked power of tech giants like Amazon and Google has allowed them to mint money from user data without fair compensation. Cory Doctorow's analysis echoes my sentiment, highlighting how the deliberate reduction of competition, as seen when Amazon predatorily priced Diapers.com out of business, leads to monopoly and monopsony. Figures like Satya Nadella (satyan@microsoft.com) at Microsoft and Sundar Pichai (sundar@google.com) at Google might lead these massive corporations, but the underlying drive to acquire or stifle competition has been consistent, regardless of leadership. My past calls for action to figures like Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad ji, urging India to lead on the "Digital Dividend from Demographic Data [4 D]" ["Digital Dividend from Demographic Data [ 4 D ]" (https://lnkd.in/fRqce6R)], become even more pertinent when considering the continuous erosion of user value discussed by Doctorow. I also previously emphasized the issue of data monetization and the need for user empowerment in my blog, "Why an insecure internet is actually in tech companies’ best interests" ["Why an insecure internet is actually in tech companies’ best interests" (http://mylinkedinposting.blogspot.com/2018/12/why-insecure-internet-is-actually-in.html)]. The call for breaking up monopolies, which I discussed in "'Standard Oil was broken up. Big Tech is similar' US Govt names Google, Amazon, hints at splitting up Monopolies" ["'Standard Oil was broken up. Big Tech is similar' US Govt names Google, Amazon, hints at splitting up Monopolies" (https://lnkd.in/fA8rZi2)], remains profoundly relevant today.
Regulatory bodies, intended to be a source of discipline, have often been neutralized. The discussion around Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), as discussed by Cory Doctorow and Sarah Jeong, reveals how legal frameworks, while intended to foster intermediation, have inadvertently contributed to the rise of these dominant firms. The recent accusations by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr (mentioned in my blog "Censorship Cartel ? Gatekeepers of World" ["Censorship Cartel ? Gatekeepers of World" (http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2024/11/censorship-cartel-gatekeepers-of-world.html)]) about Big Tech forming a "censorship cartel" further underscore this point.
The rise of AI, or "AI slop" as Cory Doctorow terms it, adds another layer to this digital stress. While some might see potential, I've consistently highlighted the limitations and ethical dilemmas. In my blogs "AI cannot make sense of the World" ["AI cannot make sense of the World" (http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2024/11/ai-cannot-make-sense-of-world.html)] and "Chatbots : the GOOD , the BAD and the UGLY" ["Chatbots : the GOOD , the BAD and the UGLY" (http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2023/03/chatbots-good-bad-and-ugly.html)], I questioned AI's true understanding and the risks of misinformation, bias, and malpractice. Doctorow's skepticism about AI's long-term economic viability and its current role in displacing wages rather than genuinely innovating mirrors my own concerns. He rightly notes that the massive capital expenditure in AI far outweighs its actual revenue, hinting at a potential bubble.
So, what do we do about this collective digital stress? Cory Doctorow offers a compelling answer: hope, not optimism or pessimism. He advocates for concrete actions like mandating interoperability to make it easier for users to leave platforms, akin to phone number portability. This would provide real market discipline. Furthermore, he champions labor organizing among tech workers, recognizing their crucial role in holding power accountable – a power they lost when they failed to unionize during times of scarcity. It's a return to fundamental principles: empower the user, foster genuine competition, and enable workers to demand fair practices.
This resonates with me deeply. The stress we feel from our digital environment is indeed a warning. It's a signal that we haven't fully faced the crucial task of reclaiming our digital sovereignty from monopolistic forces. It's a call to action, to implement solutions that ensure technology serves humanity, not the other way around.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
