Does it ever seem to you like things are getting slowly worse all the time? It can't be just me. And last week I finally saw a video that explains why.
It's a joke, of course. The video purports to show us "A Day in the Life of an Ensh*ttificator," someone whose job it is to make every product and service a little bit worse. The main character addresses the audience directly, explaining that he inherited his calling from his father before him. And at first he starts off small: cutting holes in the toes of socks, and sawing half an inch off one table leg so that the table rocks. But the Internet allows him to expand his operations. Soon he offers online services for free—just long enough to get users hooked on them—and then incrementally degrades the services to encourage customers to pay for "Premium" status (viz., the same level of service that was free last year). I won't give away the punchline, but the ending is perfectly in line with the dark humor that pervades the rest of the video. It's well worth the four minutes.
Wow, that sounds cynical! Who made it? Some disgruntled undergraduate?
| The "Breaking Free" report |
In case it's not clear in what follows, I wish them well. I agree that life is worse when online services are designed so that you can't easily switch between providers. And it could be interesting to study the slate of concrete measures proposed in the report, to understand how likely they are to achieve their stated goal. If you want me to drill into the details in a future post, please tell me in the comments. What is certain is that even with the best measures, bringing the corporations to heel won't be easy. (Consider the "Alternative to fines" discussion in this post from two years ago.) But what I want to ask right now is a far more basic question. Once the legislators get these letters and read them, what motivation do they have to act on the proposals? What's in it for them?
![]() |
| Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, Director of Digital Policy, Norwegian Consumer Council |
Because without such mobilization, I think the measures are going nowhere. If legislators are motivated by re-election, then the surest way to make progress on this topic is to convince those legislators that supporting consumers against the depradations of Big Tech is essential to getting re-elected. It might be possible to make such an argument some day, with enough organization. But up till now I have not heard it made.
Maybe it sounds like I'm ranting, or preaching cheap gloom-and-doom. But I'm not. There's an important Quality lesson here, one that applies to every improvement project you undertake—in the office, on the shop floor, or anywhere. The point is this:
- Every improvement project requires someone in authority to say, "Do it."
- Therefore, every improvement has to look good to the person who authorizes it.
- This means that no matter how much benefit the improvement might bring, it won't happen unless you can persuade the person in authority that he or she is better off approving the project than rejecting it. At some level, there has got to be something in it for him or her.
Often that "something" is just that your improvement will make things run smoother in the office or on the shop floor, and naturally the boss wants things to run smoother. That might be enough. In other cases, you might have to be a little more persuasive. But the point is that there has to be something. And my biggest concern about the package of reforms that the Forbrukerrådet has proposed to protect common consumers against Big Tech is that these measures benefit everyone except the tech executives themselves and the legislators who have to pass the laws.

This resonates completely . . . and eventually changes WILL come to be (whether good or bad, is debatable), but typically it takes hitting rock bottom first (are we there yet?) . . . and then being at rock bottom for a long time, because it's either not yet a true rock bottom, or we'll have to be there long enough to become completely wiped out first. Unfortunately. Over our history, we've observed a lot of change . . . and it'll continue as such. How interesting it is to be here in it now. I appreciate your bringing this to light and I love your posts! I'll definitely like to see you drill into "the slate of concrete measures proposed in the report" and "to understand how likely [Forbrukerrådet] are to achieve their stated goal". Thank you, Michael!
ReplyDeleteHmm. That's a depressing outlook. Strictly speaking I don't think the argument requires "hitting rock bottom," unless you define "rock bottom" to mean "the point before things turn around." All the argument requires is that we reach a point when the frustrations of ordinary consumers are ORGANIZED enough to become an effective political interest group. In theory, I suppose it should be possible to reach that point before we are "completely wiped out first." Shouldn't it? At any rate we can hope.
DeleteI generally agree; it took the Great Depression to create the political will to counteract the Gilded Age.... T.
ReplyDeleteAs I noted to the Anonymous commenter above, it seems like it should be possible for consumers to organize themselves into an effective voice before we reach the point of absolute despair. But I am no expert on the political process, and still less on what it takes to achieve effective organization. If you know people who are good at that and who are looking for a Cause to champion, feel free to forward them this post as a modest proposal. 😃
DeleteReal competition is the antidote. What we have is de facto monopolies.
ReplyDeleteIn the past breaking up monopolies was justified by prevention of price gouging. But Facebook, X, etc are free. Nevertheless, there is no real competition - because our data is the product.
Those monopolies need to be broken up despite the fact that they are 'free'.
I won't argue. But how do we encourage legislators to pass the right laws?
Delete