Enshittification became popular in 2023 after it was used in a blog post by author of The Internet Con, Cory Doctorow, who used it to describe how digital platforms can become worse and worse:
“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification.”
“Enshittification,” Cory Doctorow’s coinage describing the process by which internet media platforms become increasingly unusable and un-quittable, has been named 2023’s “Digital Word of the Year.” Here, we break down what the term means and Doctorow’s solution to the internet’s relentless enshittification.
Language evolves. What he described refers to a specific pattern relating to specific platforms, but it also speaks to an overarching pattern that can be applied to most tech and digital markets nowadays.
User entrenchment and the rise of oversized tech companies dominating the industry on multiple fronts has brought us to a tech space where companies no longer need to fear backlash or consequences for most anti-user decisions they could make, as users will simply never leave, and competition is sparse. The “Free Market” is effectively neutered because users will complain but not change their behavior if the cost for doing so means moderately less convenience.
Enshitification, to me, is when a tech company realizes this and takes advantage of it by eroding what made the thing worthwhile, knowing full well they can disregard all criticism and complaints.
It basically speaks to a moment when tech companies shift from thinking “how do we attract users?” to “What can we get away with?”
Cory’s original usage of the word gave it a useful and specific meaning. But that has evolved extremely rapidly with popular usage into the word simply meaning “I don’t like this thing.” Which takes away the usefulness because now it’s no longer describing a specific reason for not liking it.
It’d be like if every kind of ailment started being referred to as an “infection.” Concussions, sprains, hypothermia, etc, all being passed off as “he got infected.” We already have generic terms for that like “he got hurt,” and now when someone does get literally infected we’ve lost the word that would be used to specify that.
Languages evolve, sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s always in a good direction. In this specific case evolution is enshittifying the language and that’s worth a little (admittedly futile) push-back.
Old words fade or shift and new words will keep coming. It’s not necessarily a bad direction.
Not necessarily, but in this particular case it seems bad to me. We’re losing a specialized term for something that IMO warrants having one.
But often it is a bad direction, and it feels like it’s becoming politically incorrect to point out when that’s happening.
That’s a thought-terminating cliche that people often use to dismiss legitimate criticism.
In this particular instance I think you’ve made a good case that broadening the definition is a good thing, but I really hate the implication no use of language is ever wrong, but rather just “evolution”, which is implied to be least be a neutral process if not actively beneficial.
I’ve seen people defend literal typos as “language evolution” and get massively upvoted while anyone who dares to disagree is mocked. A typo isn’t language evolution at all unless it becomes popular. Otherwise, to continue the biology metaphor, it’s just a language mutation, and like biological mutations, typos are harmful to communication far more often than they’re helpful.
Another example a bad use of language is how words and phrases are co-opted for political purposes. “Woke” is an obvious recent example. “Welfare” is an older much much more egregious example, where just the mere spelling of the word makes the original meaning clear, and that meaning is unequivocally positive, yet most people think “welfare” means government assistance to poor people. Or take “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”, which went from an example of something that’s literally impossible to something people are unironically told they should be doing. This sort of thing is language evolution, but it’s not neutral. It’s done with an political agenda. It impoverishes our language our language and stifles honest communication.