Or more specifically, we are ashamed when we can't afford things we need. We are saturated by right-wing propaganda that says if you don't succeed, it's your fault. So, like abuse victims, we internalize the shame of what is done to us.
It's a message tailored so we don't question the rich, and as an added benefit to them, trains the poor to not seek government systemic solutions to the inequality that creates their poverty.
I've seen this sentiment expressed multiple times, but you explained it beautifully. Our parents got to be people. We're just resources.
The article isn't very clear, but the novelty here is that this is unprecedented hypertargeting to individual users. Instead of the current website partner, days-before-flight, and other general factors that affect everyone's pricing mostly equally, think Uber's pricing, where you are quoted $40 for a ride, and the person right next to you is quoted $25 for the exact same ride thanks to their dynamic data-driven (and ethics-free) pricing.
This opens the possibility that Delta will charge you more solely because the data Delta has been able to acquire for you suggests you'll pay more. And that black-box AI system could base it on all sorts of nefarious reasons - e.g., your mother is dying in the hospital, increasing your desperation to get a flight to that location, which makes its way into the dynamic "motivation" index in the AI calculus, which doubles the price of your flight.
We're not there yet, but when you see the sorts of things Uber does for reference, I feel it's a clear path to airfare's little corner of our coming dystopia.
Hmmm, I have been skeptical of AI, but it looks like it's getting smarter.
Thank you for submitting your final exam for AP American History. ChatGPT 5-TeacherEdition graded your Llama 6.3o answers to be 25% incorrect. This determination is only appealable by confirming an error in grading with a Gemini X-5-level grading-appeal service, with a Standard Reliability rating of 7.5 or higher. Our system notes from your records that this service is not available to your income tier.
Your future profession is selected as: Meat packer.
Have a nice day.
ChatGPT would never make those capitalization errors unless you specifically added to your prompt, "Capitalize words like you're a brain-damaged capuchin."
Yeah, this post started as a reassurance that Tailscale wouldn't enshittify. But it turned out to just be an argument about how to avoid enshittification that boiled down to two principles:
Both are partially right and partially wrong.
For #1: Yes, making your product worse eventually harms the company. No, you can't expect CEOs to accept that as a reason to not make their product worse because even if it harms the company, short-term incentives that lead to enshittification are eventually going to become irresistible. His comment about reaching "zen" with leveled growth and profit will never stop VCs from calling in demands and favors.
For #2: Yes, founders typically "get it" more than their VC- or failure-initiated replacements. No, that doesn't mean founders are uniquely resistant to enshittification. This is your point too, and it's why I don't believe this person - they lose credibility here because they don't acknowledge they aren't special. Every tech bro out there thinks they've cracked the code to permanent tech hegemony. That exceptionalist thinking turns into enshittification, since the product-worsening or overcharging is easier to justify as temporary/necessary/not-a-big-deal (until it isn't).
And all of this doesn't explain why Tailscale specifically gets immunity if the principles are true.
So interesting post, and a lot more self-awareness than most founders which is still a little reassuring, but a lot of warning signs too.
Edit: clarity
That's some quality conspiracy thinking!
But there are too many people who could have been early adopters and have any number of random motives for this to be "likely."
Heck, I was watching Bitcoin when it was like $0.002 a coin and someone spent 10,000 (presumably home-CPU-mined) BTC to buy a pizza. There were a ton of people there at the beginning, the barrier to purchasing a ton was very low, and unlike me, a lot of them certainly had $20,000 to spare and believed in it enough to buy.
Is it just me, or is this graph (first graph in the article) completely unintelligible?
The X-axis being time is self-explanatory, but the Y-axis is somehow exponential time but then also mapping random milestones of performance, meaning those milestones are hard-linked to that time-based Y-axis? What?
Yeah, Match.com isn't satisfied until everyone is miserable.
It's weird to think about how dominantly successful any app that took a principled position and resisted enshittification starting in 2010 would be now.
I think civilization is probably just ending after these last few generations, frankly.
Probably for the best...
I moved to all-digital music-making and -listening in the 90s, and agree that a lot of the "analog" benefits are imagined or the result of misunderstandings how technology works.
But I think you're missing the point. Don't forget that noise, feedback, muddiness, lack of range, lack of definition are all legitimate effects often intentionally applied to make music sound a certain way.
A cassette is objectively lower quality by sampling rate, reproducibility, etc, but you agree that it affects the sound. At that point, I think you have to admit that a contrary personal preference for cassette or vinyl is valid. It's not objectively "worse" because many people actually and validly find those "bugs" to be "features."
It's fine to like the digital revolution, but I'm just identifying you're making a value judgement, and others can rightly value differently.