cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/24088740

Do you think Lemmy and other parts of the fediverse will eventually enshittify? I think this would be an interesting discussion to have. There currently is not financial incentive like the ones that have led centralized platforms to enshittify. But there might be in the future. Does decentralization protect against that tendency in some way?

Lemmy and Mastodon do give me the hope, that when one platform turns to shit, there will be people creating a platform that - for the time being - is not.

  • Cowbee [he/him]
    13•2 months ago

    Enshittification comes from Capitalism and the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, not necessarily centralization. The Fediverse eliminates the issues that lead to enshittification.

  • silverpill
    8•1 month ago

    @5dh @fediverse Financial incentive is not the only possible cause. If project leaders stop listening to their users for some other reason, you’ll get the same result.
    And there is another, more subtle problem: protocol bloat. Fediverse services are getting more and more complicated, and the cost of creating a new platform is constantly increasing. If this problem is not addressed, at some point Fediverse will start looking like a web browser market, where new players can’t compete due to an immense implementation complexity.

  • NONE
    7•2 months ago

    In my opinion, enshittification occurs when, among other things, the user experience is “ruined” in order to generate profits by offering “improvements” that are nothing more than going back to previous states of the platform, only now paying or paying more.

    While it could happen that some parts of the Fediverse could become Shitty, it seems impossible to me that it would happen in the whole fediverse. There’s always the option of blocking problematic instances and such. And anyway, users who enter the fediverse do so mostly fleeing from enshittification, so, I think, we are less willing to put up with that kind of bullshit and will leave sooner rather than later, maybe creating something new (and better, if possible).

    • @[email protected]
      2•1 month ago

      I think more broadly, it happens whenever there is the mentality of “more X, no matter what”. Usually that’s profit, but I don’t think it’s mandatory.

  • @[email protected]
    4•2 months ago

    If Lemmy ever really took off things would get harder. There’s quite a few subs but people barely notice.

  • Mactan
    3•1 month ago

    it’s inevitable for any projects that aren’t protected by strong enough foss license. that’s how they go from open source to source available

    • @[email protected]English
      5•1 month ago

      I agree, it’s already happening. The Media Bias Fact Checker bot is another example. Nobody I’ve interacted with wants it, it is functionally useless and inaccurate, and appears to be a cash grab (though we can’t know for sure, because the mods refuse to openly discuss it with users). We live in a capitalist society, so even platforms like Lemmy are subject to its pressures, and require active pushback from users to prevent profits from taking precedence over user satisfaction on larger instances.

      • Cowbee [he/him]
        5•1 month ago

        To be fair, that seems to be more of a Lemmy.world problem, which itself is one of the worst overall instances.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•1 month ago

          I just subbed, thanks. This is kind of my fundamental challenge with this platform, though. I don’t want to miss anything on the subjects I’m interested in, so I sub to every instances’ version of the same community. I’m probably doing it wrong, but if I sub to just one small sub-community because I like the mods, or the lack of bots, I feel like I’d be missing a lot of content.