For the remainder of May, my acclaimed solarpunk novel The Lost Cause (2023) is available as a DRM-free ebook for just $2.99!

The tale of “The Scorpion and the Frog” illustrates a grim reality: a trusting frog assists a scorpion across a brook, only to be fatally stung upon arrival. The frog’s dying inquiry, “Why?” is met with the scorpion’s lament, “I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help myself; it’s my nature.”

Capitalist theorists propose a solution to this paradox: construct a system where businesses benefit from enhancing the welfare of others. By applying competition and regulatory constraints, the self-serving motives of firms can, in theory, yield positive societal results.

However, four decades ago, pro-monopoly economists dismissed these ethical considerations in favor of the “consumer welfare” theory in antitrust matters. This viewpoint sees monopolies as signs of efficiency; encountering one suggests a company so exceptional that consumers choose it exclusively.

Regardless of one’s belief in this theory, the reality remains: a firm driven by self-interest, once devoid of competition, often reveals unbridled greed. The absence of rivals leads to a decline in quality, as the owner siphons off value from both employees and consumers. “I couldn’t resist the urge. It’s my nature.” - A. Scorpion.

The phenomenon of enshittification—where platforms degrade—emerges from a lack of constraints.

Companies that dominate their markets often extend their control to regulators, undermining privacy, labor, and consumer protection laws. They exploit digital platforms that can be swiftly modified to transfer value from customers to themselves.

Additionally, they advocate for expansive intellectual property rights, stifling potential competitors who might enhance their services. This culminates in a power dynamic where they can easily dismiss workers who oppose their exploitative strategies.

These corporations become too large to fail, too powerful to face legal repercussions, and ultimately, too indifferent to consumer welfare.

Digital companies possess unique capabilities; unlike traditional businesses that can merely increase prices or lower product quality, digital firms can retroactively impose fees or remove features from devices already owned by consumers. This constant, flexible connection between a device and its manufacturer fosters irresistible temptations.

For instance, if you’ve integrated Wink’s “smart home” devices into your property since their release in 2014, you now face the threat of your gadgets being rendered useless unless you pay a subscription fee.

Did you purchase a “Mellow Sous Vide”? Surprise! It now requires an annual fee of $48 to operate.

If you own an Exogen ultrasound device, it will deactivate after 343 uses, resulting in e-waste.

Even high-end products like a Ferrari can become inoperable if tampering is detected, requiring internet access to restore functionality—a problem if it malfunctions in a remote location.

Similarly, a Peloton treadmill may cease to function without an annual fee, effectively turning it into an expensive clothes rack.

Epson printers may disable themselves after a specific number of prints, supposedly for users' benefit, due to potential ink leaks.

In an extreme case, if you have a neural implant, the new owners of the company may halt support, leaving a part of your brain inoperable.

This situation resembles a perpetual money-back guarantee for companies; they can retroactively change the terms of service or the deal itself.

While companies like Spotify can remote-brick devices like the “Car Thing” tablet, leaving owners out $90, it’s a reminder that future generations will inherit vast amounts of e-waste.

Additionally, leaked contracts reveal Samsung’s tactics to control independent repair shops, including sharing customer data and mandating the destruction of devices if unauthorized repairs are suspected.

Such practices violate consumer rights established by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which allows the use of third-party parts.

Samsung’s actions stem from an inability to restrain their corporate impulses. Freed from regulatory oversight, they can eliminate competition and operate without accountability.

This is why Right to Repair legislation, like the one recently enacted in Oregon, is vital. It empowers consumers by safeguarding the right to repair and reverse-engineer products, allowing them to maintain their devices even when manufacturers decide to change the rules.

In light of Samsung’s increasing hostility towards repair efforts, iFixit has ceased its partnership with the company, which provided parts and manuals to customers seeking repairs.

Fortunately, consumers in regions with robust Right to Repair laws can bypass manufacturer constraints, ensuring that devices remain functional without needing authorization from companies like Samsung.

While these corporations may be trapped by their exploitative tendencies, consumers equipped with the right regulations no longer have to endure them.

If you prefer a more detailed essay format of this discussion, you can find it on my blog at:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshittification