Talk:Enshittification

the See Also section on this article is ridiculously long. Somebody with better judgement than me should trim it. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, but it might survive another pass. This might be useful for a portal, or template. Several topics, like link rot, and the dead internet theory have a very large connected web of topics we could start to put together to trim the respective "see also" sections. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Second comment, perhaps we could heavily overhaul the existing media culture template. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of a template for these similar ideas, but it really lacks a solid central theme besides "existential problems relating to the internet and DRM" -1ctinus📝🗨 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we could possibly expand the section of the {{Media culture}} template for "issues" by dividing them into "social" or "ethical" and "technical." This would make the issues section look like the "deception" section. The DIT could likely fit into the "deception" "others" section, and "enshittification" in a "technical" section under "issues." Looking at the "Media Culture" template, it clearly needs an overhaul anyway. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Every platform is going to use media in countless ways, but that's not really what this is about, right? The use of the term for Uber and AirBnB, for example, has very little to to do with media, and more to do with the services they facilitate. I don't know off-hand of any relevant templates related to platform economy, but it might be worth hunting around for something in that vein, as well. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I ended up removing the entire section as I roughly agree with 1ctinus. There are some broadly related concepts in there, e.g. closed platform or feature creep, but general readers are not going to recognize that without contextualized, likely in-article mentions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the section but trimmed it tremendously. I think the section has some links that can help "build the web," and topics like link rot and the dead internet theory are broadly related but not something we should work into the main text. I deleted the "further reading section." GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anything relating to paywalls have been removed. It's a key factor of the evolution of enshittification - ie. the move from a free to freemium to paywall model and the shift toward getting everyone to pay for a subscription. It's akin to removing the conclusion of the story from the Romeo and Juliet article on the basis that it's "a bit too long". --tgheretford (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The see also section got bloated again over the last year. 18 items is far too many to be aligned with MOS:SEEALSO's "relevant and limited to a reasonable number" criterion. I've trimmed it back to GeogSage's version from last year. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this article kinda come across as one-sided and non-neutral? I understand that there aren't a lot of sources arguing that this phenomenon isn't happening, but it's a bit disingenuous to assert that such a decline in quality in services is objective rather than perceived. Dunkahoop (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

If our content is properly sourced, and if no proper sources say otherwise, I think things are in order. Nø (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it's completely selfserving, not at all one sided. 99.74.30.179 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is obvious. The article is no better than forum cruft. Are we going to allow Wikipedia to become yet another ad platform for the well-connected like Doctorow?

It belongs in Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. 2601:240:C801:5040:5DD7:EB2B:265A:BB32 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The large number of google hits may not mean much, but the seriousity of the sources on the first page of hits suggests that a Wikipedia article may be relevant. (I am not commenting on the quality of our article.) Nø (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is outrageous here? The word itself is (deliberately) bad taste, but the phenomenon is obviously real. Anyway, Wikipedia not in the business of collecting evidence; we collect sources. Nø (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On the topic of sources, I focus on Google Scholar rather then Google, and a Google Scholar search for "Enshittification" has several hits not on the article yet (I may have missed them). Specifically, we have these four publications in reputable journals that I think should be included, and that definitely confirm notability.

• A turning point for global health: challenge or opportunity? (This is likely the best publication I'm listing as it gives an overview of the topic).
• The “enshittification” of online information services obligates rigorous management of scientific journals
• The urgency of properly engaged dialogue in urban research in the context of the new landscape of ‘shitification’ (Mentions that the title is a play on words)
• Data Paradoxes (Behind a paywall but appears to discuss the term)
• Stakeholder Management in Change Initiatives: Reddit Changes Its API Pricing (Behind a paywall but appears to discuss the term)

I'll be working to add these later, but thought I'd throw them on the talk page to help put this issue to rest, and in case anyone else wants to do it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I should have known better than to expect a Wikipedia article discussing these issues to do so in a way that is impartial. Indeed, this article that pretends to decry the harmful effects of greed is being used to fill the pockets of yet another well-connected do-nothing, Doctorow.

Give yourselves a pat on the back, brothers. You are the vanguard, Orwell's boot stamping on the face of humanity forever. May the paychecks justify the shamelessness! 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sir this is a Wendy's 2600:1015:B239:C2F7:A0D6:17CF:22CE:9584 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"Enshittification" has gone well beyond being a meme; it has established itself as a word as a part of the language, and as part of mass culture as a concept with a clear meaning, and evident notability. I think we have consensus here that this article is valid - if you still want to get rid of the article, please file an WP:AFD. — The Anome (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus, there are dissenting views all over the talk page. The word is not established in the language, as can be evidenced by discussing it with anyone over the age of 40.

Can I start importing the rest of Urban Dictionary to Wikipedia then, since it is full of terms in common use that are not discussed here? Can I use them to promote my business too, as is being done for Doctorow? 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I provided 3 peer reviewed publications; two from Elsevier (the Lancet and Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport), and the Sage Publishing journal Dialogues in Urban Research. I provided two book chapters, one from Sage, and the other from Springer. This is not click-bait journalism; these are respected peer-reviewed and academic publications. Like, I get not liking the origin of a term, but at this point this has clearly entered the lexicon and there is more then enough literature to meet notability requirements. The best argument against the term at this point is that it is jargon, but that alone would not disqualify it any more then Skibidi Toilet. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There is already a due process for deleting articles. 2600:1008:B08E:1205:D980:2CE0:4BFD:DFD, you have the remedy of WP:AFD at hand if you want it. Otherwise, I feel there's little point in continuing this discussion here. — The Anome (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The word is not established in the language, as can be evidenced by discussing it with anyone over the age of 40. This is not how that works. This is not how any of this works. Most importantly, that is not how language works, let alone a global language such as English.

There is no consensus, there are dissenting views all over the talk page. The existence of dissent is not the same as a total lack of consensus.

The internet and digital culture in general are a big source of linguistic innovation, and establish lots of slang words with a casual flavor (e.g. shitposting). Words used to describe decay will have connotations of decay, e.g. rot, waste, shit, or slop (see Enshittification § See also). This is unlikely to change. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is little more than an irritating meme. ~2025-36332-84 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The word is very prescient for our time and definitely should have an entry here IMO. There are formal routes for article takedown and they should be pursued by objectors rather than arguing here. Velvetfreak (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2025 and 11 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacky2908, Bigfoot4903, Ikg388, Opinionated Consumer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GardenShed7 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Theklan has been trying to add an enshittification explainer video that is read in Basque but has English-language subtitles. I've reverted that for now, as I'm not so sure a non-English video should lead an English Wikipedia article (see also WP:VIDEO § Style guidelines), but others may feel differently. (cc Demonocrazy and will leave a message at User talk:~2025-31200-75.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem useful to me. The AI generated images are quite cryptic and completely static, and their titles aren't translated into English. An English reader may as well read the article, as spend time slowly reading the subtitles under a person talking. Belbury (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The video has AI generated images, but there's an actual person talking and explaining the issue. If the titles are missing, those can be added to the subtitles with a small effort, if needed. There are other examples about adding explanation videos at WP:VIDEO, is not about shooting short videos, which is explained at the Style guidelines section. Theklan (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see why the English Wikipedia would use a video with a non-English voiceover. Even if you set aside the video guidelines, I'm not sure the AI images qualify for the exceptions laid out at WP:AIIMAGES, and relying on subtitles feels an awful lot like a MOS:ACCESS problem. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): P1antfarmer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by P1antfarmer (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The lede should be expanded to say that enshittification can apply to things other than the internet and digital services. Something along the lines of: The term Enshittification was originally coined to describe an Internet phenomenon and worsening of digital services. The definition has since been expanded and has been applied to other areas, such as physical products and politics. (or something like that)

‘Enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything – article by Cory Doctorow for the Financial Times

It can also refer more generally to any state of deterioration, especially in politics or society. (Merriam-Webster)

Doctorow calls for a “genuine, spontaneous groundswell of popular rage at the enshittification of everything.” (Shepherd Express) TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Going through a number of the examples it seems like there is some original research for what is considered Enshitiffication. A number of the sources linked either don't say this is an example of Enshittifcation or the the quality of the source isn't very good which makes the claim.

For example, raising prices are commonly cited, but that doesn't meet the definition of the term (which is a reduction in quality) the source itself doesn't say that this is an example of enshitification.

What are people's thoughts? Sibshops (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and remove instances of WP:OR.

It also appears I was mistaken with raising prices being enshittifictaion. Some of the sources identify enshittification that way. Sibshops (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems like no one had any concerns with the changes so far.

If no one has any objection, maybe the next step would be to limit the examples to just use reliable secondary sources which cover the term.

The idea of the examples section is to help the user understand the term, not to be a place for general complaints about platforms. Sibshops (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Re " I was mistaken with raising prices being enshittifictaion. Some of the sources identify enshittification that way."

In my opinion, before we list any definition that differs significantly from Doctorow's, we need multiple reliable sources that use the new definition. It is just too easy to apply a wildly popular word or phrase to whatever the author doesn't like. Someone may be a reliable source on soldering, but if they say "lead-free solder is an example of enshittification because it requires higher soldering temperatures and is more brittle" that doesn't make them a reliable source on the definition of enshittification or make lead-free solder an example we should use. Raising prices is indeed one of the latter stages of some kinds of enshittification, but there are many other factors than can lead to higher prices. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point. It looks like the places where enshittification is used to mean raising prices as opposed to degrading service offerings are coming from primary sources. I'll see about limiting the examples to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources shouldn't be used to analyze, evaluate, or interpret material in the first place. Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that your recent edits have really made the page better. You can expect a little extra something in the paycheck we all get for editing Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Loopy30 I have a small question about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1331179059

It seems Jacobin isn't listed as a reliable source according to the perennial sources list and I also couldn't find another source to use as a replacement. Should it still be included? Sibshops (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sibshops, if you look at the key for the colour code (the yellow/sand colour) given to Jacobin, it reads "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". This source should only be used on a case-by-case basis as "information from Jacobin not covered under RSEDITORIAL is considered generally reliable albeit WP:BIASED". Given that this business/IT article quotes the New York Times and Cory Doctorow, its facts do not appear to be dispute. Loopy30 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The source appears to be an editorial essay, so RSEDITORAL would apply here, right?

This is the title of the article being quoted "Airbnb Was Supposed to Save Capitalism. Instead, It Just Devolved Into Garbage." It's not just reporting in this instance. Sibshops (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Doctorow himself said this:

• "Twiddling is the means by which enshittification is accomplished. The early critique of Airbnb concerned how the company was converting every city’s rental housing stock to unlicensed hotel rooms, worsening the already dire, worldwide housing crisis. Those concerns remain today, of course, but they’ve been joined by outrage over enshittifying twiddling, where homeowners are being hit by confusing compensation rules, and responding by imposing junk fees on renters"

For what it is worth, this editorial in Medium lists Jacobin as a source.

One of the sources Doctorow links to in the above post might be usable:

Ivan Langham's blog contains another editorial opinion that covers enshittification and airbnb. Possibly usable per WP:RSOPINION?

I weakly favor using the Jacobin source, but would not object if the consensus is to exclude it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think allowing self-published sources like medium is probably more problematic than using the Jacobin source. I also don't think use of the Jacobin article in self-published sources adds any weight.

Relying on WP:RSOPINION seems problematic, here, as well. His opinion on AirBnB hasn't received attention in secondary sources. If it's okay to repost everything he said, it could make the examples section a very long list of things he doesn't like. And that won't add any encyclopedic value to help readers understand the term. Sibshops (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You make a good point. I now weakly oppose using the Jacobin source, but would not object if the consensus is to include it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like @Mortee has concerns with the Jacobin source and edited the article, as well. I'll remove the section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enshittification&diff=prev&oldid=1332884736 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Accelerated Enshitttyfication.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Youtube has had more than enough examples over the years to have its own section (or page, even); especially with the recent controversy of dummying out highly customizable subtitle formats that allow for colors and styles, and removing the subtitles from videos using those formats. Untamed 64 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you are a new editor, and that's fine -- some of our best articles came from brand new users.

I am going to give you some advice on how to make your suggested YouTube section happen. Our rules seem strange at first but there are good reasons for them. You don't have to write the section yourself; if you follow the steps below any number of experienced editors will be glad to write the section for you. Writing is easy. Research is hard.

STEP ONE: Make sure you understand the concept of enshittification, Many people confuse it with "anything that gets worse". Ideally you would read Doctorow's book on the subject, but at the very least read and understand what he says here:

STEP TWO: Find some reliable sources that support the idea that YouTube is an example of enshittification. As a bare minimum they have to contain the words "YouTube" and "enshittification". Post them here. If you don't understand what we mean by "reliable source" read WP:V and WP:RS. Note: YouTube itself is seldom a reliable source.

STEP THREE: Don't disappear! keep coming back and contributing to the discussion here. All too often we have someone who makes a suggestion and doesn't bother to read the replies. You need to participate to get anything done. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Step Two needs to be pinned to a lot of pages. The dead Internet theory for example constantly has people trying to give sources that don't mention it to support their view of the theory. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

And of course, the above drive-by comment was the last time Untamed64 edited Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

So I think there should be several platforms that should be put here:

• Roblox:
  • https://www.wired.com/story/robloxs-ai-powered-age-verification-is-a-complete-mess/
  • https://www.polygon.com/roblox-new-facial-expression-policy-classic-heads/
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/esports/news/roblox-under-fire-as-critics-warn-facial-recognition-fix-may-put-children-at-even-greater-risk/articleshow/125502591.cms

• YouTube:
  • https://www.the-standard.org/news/youtube-s-new-ai-age-verification-policy-continues-to-face-backlash/article_35d3d91b-8bd6-47dd-8cda-1584a54ec32b.html
  • https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/50k-youtubers-rage-against-ai-spying-that-could-expose-identities/
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/youtube-music-faces-backlash-after-making-song-lyrics-a-premium-only-feature/articleshow/128174134.cms
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us-streamers/youtube-creator-bans-controversy-why-endermans-case-has-raised-global-concerns-over-ai-based-moderation/articleshow/125233743.cms
  • https://www.creativebloq.com/news/youtube-ui-change
  • https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/deleted-youtube-ai-powered-age-122929266.html
  • https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/50k-youtubers-rage-against-ai-spying-that-could-expose-identities/
  • https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/30/youtube-google-ai-age-verification
  • https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2023/10/18/youtubes-new-ad-blocker-crackdown-what-you-need-to-know/
  • https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/youtube-blocking-ad-blockers-watching-videos-b1080501.html
  • https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-is-cracking-down-on-ad-blockers-2023-10?r=US&IR=T
  • https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/26/privacy_advocate_challenges_youtube/
  • https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2024/06/20/youtubes-ad-blocker-ban-just-got-even-bigger/

• Discord:
  • https://www.dexerto.com/tech/discord-users-are-cancelling-their-nitro-after-new-mobile-layout-update-2421053/
  • https://www.thegamer.com/discord-nft-backlash-nitro-subscription/
  • https://gamerant.com/discord-ui-changes-users-unhappy/
  • https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-11/discord-app-backtracks-on-crypto-tool-after-backlash-from-users
  • https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/10/discord-nfts-crypto-jason-citron/
  • https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/discord-delays-global-age-verification-rollout-after-backlash-3324093/
  • https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/discord-age-verification-faces-backlash-could-your-id-leak-like-before-1777660
  • https://www.gamespot.com/articles/discord-reverses-privacy-policy-changes-after-ai-backlash/1100-6512309/
  • https://www.newsweek.com/discord-age-verification-face-scan-controversy-11494375
  • https://www.ign.com/articles/weve-seen-some-questions-as-age-verification-backlash-grows-discord-insists-changes-wont-impact-majority-of-adult-users
  • https://www.fastcompany.com/91490356/discord-is-asking-for-your-id-the-backlash-is-about-more-than-privacy
  • https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/discord-faces-backlash-over-age-checks-after-data-breach-exposed-70000-ids/
  • https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/discord-and-persona-end-partnership-after-shady-uk-age-test-sparks-outcry/
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/discord-faces-backlash-over-new-age-verification-plan-says-controversial-uk-test-with-persona-has-ended/articleshow/128669562.cms
  • https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/discord-pushes-back-age-verification-rollout-backlash-rcna260604

~2026-85995-5 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

NO. Enshittification is not the same as "businesses, organizations, or governments doing something bad." Doing something bad goes way back. The Greeks and Romans had "doing bad things" problems. Enshittification is something fairly new, and there were specific and recent changes that allowed it to happen. You would know this if you had bothered to read this Wikipedia article or any of Cory Doctorow's essays and books on Enshittification. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Why should enshittification only be used for this narrow scope? Why should it not apply to, for example:

- Google blocking 3rd party app developers unless they bow to whatever constraints google comes up with (+ money) starting September 2026?

- Youtubes broken way of dealing with copyright claims, allowing trolls to completely block monetisation?

- Search and filtering options that absolutely do not work in the users favor (e.g. try filtering by star rating on amazon, a simple number -> it does not work!).

This is all enshittification. Enshittification should also not be limited to digital services, there are a lot of examples of physical products get worse and worse. Big companies or brands that were known for high quality reduce quality for higher profit margins (Boeing is one big example). Or those simple things, like the use of sealed tanks in washing machines, limiting the live of the unit to the bearings, as a replacement is now prohibitively expensive. If we instead go by the strict use of the word, all examples in the sketch "A Day in the Life of an Ensh*ttificator" would not even be enshittification.

It should also not be limited to cases where it is absolutely clear that something "was good" and then "got worse" from one specific company. If a new company is worse from the beginning, that is still enshittification, just not in a local sense for that one company but in a global sense (e.g. compared to other companies or what the user expects). Eheran (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure! But... this is Wikipedia. We don't publish original research. If reliable sources don't call it 'enshittification' or at least 'platform decay' or something more specific, this isn't the place to make this argument. Do any of those sources actually call this an example of enshittification? (Are they reliable?)

I am surprised I can't find more sources for Youtube, specifically. Here's one from itsfoss.com, but I don't think that meets WP:RS. I am happy to find new sources, but sources have to be specific to enshittification to be usable at this article. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Enshittification was invented and defined by Cory Doctorow. While it does happen that the meaning of words change over time, that has not happened with Enshittification. You can't just redefine words because you think they should mean something else. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: Per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, only significant alternative names should be listed in the lead. While "[en]crap[p]ification" has some historical value as predecessor and is rightly discussed in the History section, none of these are in common use today and there's no value to adding them to the lead. Asamboi (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. after looking at "encrappification" in the history section, I don't believe that's supported either. The sources appear to document scatological usages, but I don't see a reliable source explicitly describing them as predecessors to enshittifation. Without reliable sources making this connection as the history of this term, it may be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. No only do the sources not explicitly describe crappification/encrappification as a predecessor to enshittification, the two concepts are not the same. Here is how Corey Doctorow defines it: (sorry for the long quote, but when I tried cutting it down the essential difference between encrappification and enshittification got lost.)

"This is enshittification: Surpluses are first directed to users; then, once they're locked in, surpluses go to suppliers; then once they're locked in, the surplus is handed to shareholders and the platform becomes a useless pile of shit. From mobile app stores to Steam, from Facebook to Twitter, this is the enshittification lifecycle.

This is [how] platforms like Prodigy transformed themselves overnight, from a place where you went for social connection to a place where you were expected to “stop talking to each other and start buying things.”

This shell-game with surpluses is what happened to Facebook. First, Facebook was good to you: It showed you the things the people you loved and cared about had to say. This created a kind of mutual hostage-taking: Once a critical mass of people you cared about were on Facebook, it became effectively impossible to leave, because you'd have to convince all of them to leave too, and agree on where to go. You may love your friends, but half the time you can't agree on what movie to see and where to go for dinner. Forget it.

Then, it started to cram your feed full of posts from accounts you didn't follow. At first, it was media companies, whom Facebook preferentially crammed down its users' throats so that they would click on articles and send traffic to newspapers, magazines, and blogs. Then, once those publications were dependent on Facebook for their traffic, it dialed down their traffic. First, it choked off traffic to publications that used Facebook to run excerpts with links to their own sites, as a way of driving publications into supplying full-text feeds inside Facebook's walled garden.

This made publications truly dependent on Facebook—their readers no longer visited the publications' websites, they just tuned into them on Facebook. The publications were hostage to those readers, who were hostage to each other. Facebook stopped showing readers the articles publications ran, tuning The Algorithm to suppress posts from publications unless they paid to "boost" their articles to the readers who had explicitly subscribed to them and asked Facebook to put them in their feeds.

Now, Facebook started to cram more ads into the feed, mixing payola from people you wanted to hear from with payola from strangers who wanted to commandeer your eyeballs. It gave those advertisers a great deal, charging a pittance to target their ads based on the dossiers of non-consensually harvested personal data they'd stolen from you.

Sellers became dependent on Facebook, too, unable to carry on business without access to those targeted pitches. That was Facebook's cue to jack up ad prices, stop worrying so much about ad fraud, and to collude with Google to rig the ad market through an illegal program called Jedi Blue.

Today, Facebook is terminally enshittified, a terrible place to be whether you're a user, a media company, or an advertiser."

This isn't just providers making their product and services worse (crappification). That existed in ancient Rome. This really is something new. When a Roman chariot maker started crappifying the chariots, you could simply buy chariots from someone else. In the passage above, Doctorow describes something new. You are locked in. You can't just move to another Facebook, Google, YouTube, of even another Wikipedia. Not until the day that everyone else decides to leave too.

I don't think we should even mention those earlier concepts. The connection is WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Until reliable sources make the connection, I updated the section to remove crappification as part of the history of the term. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)