#facebook clone app

[socialnetworkingsns]

Build your own LinkedIn with the LinkedIn clone software.

Now build your own LinkedIn clone app with the best LinkedIn clone script and start building a community of professionals with the SocialEngine.

Check more details here -

[rebeccabarrett]

Facebook Hacker To Check Your Partner’s Secret Messages

Facebook Hacker to Check Your Partner's Secret Messages: An unethical and illegal tool used to invade privacy and breach trust in relationships.

Related: 5 Ways To Facebook Hack In Cheating Evidence Investigations

In today's digital age, where communication primarily takes place online, concerns about privacy and trust have become increasingly prevalent. With the rise of social media platforms like Facebook, individuals may be tempted to use various tools, such as Facebook Hacker, to check their partner's secret messages. However, before delving into such methods, it's essential to consider the risks and ethical implications involved.

Why Check Partner's Secret Messages?

Doubts about a partner's faithfulness can gnaw at the core of a relationship. When signs of potential cheating emerge, such as secretive behavior or unexplained absences, individuals may feel compelled to delve into their partner's messages for confirmation or closure.

Trust forms the bedrock of any healthy relationship. However, if trust has been eroded due to past experiences or ongoing behavior, one partner may resort to checking the other's messages as a means of seeking reassurance or validation, hoping to quell their insecurities.

When communication falters and transparency wanes, suspicions can arise. In such instances, individuals may turn to monitoring their partner's messages as a last resort to gain insight into their thoughts and feelings, attempting to bridge the gap and salvage the connection.

Ethical Concerns

Aside from the risks, there are significant ethical concerns associated with hacking into someone's Facebook account. Invading someone's privacy without their knowledge or consent undermines trust and mutual respect in relationships. It can also cause emotional harm and strain interpersonal relationships.

How Facebook Hacker Tools Work

Reasons People May Want to Check Their Partner's Messages

Suspicion of Infidelity

One of the primary reasons individuals may consider using Facebook Hacker tools is suspicion of infidelity. If someone suspects their partner of cheating, they may resort to monitoring their online activities, including their private messages, in an attempt to gather evidence of wrongdoing.

Concerns About Online Safety

In some cases, individuals may justify hacking into their partner's Facebook account out of concern for their safety. They may fear that their partner is engaging in risky or inappropriate behavior online, such as interacting with potential predators or sharing sensitive information.

Benefits of checking your partner's secret messages by a Facebook hacker?

It's crucial to emphasize that there are no legitimate benefits to checking your partner's secret messages by using a Facebook hacker. Engaging in such behavior not only violates ethical boundaries but also carries serious legal implications. However, for the sake of understanding the misguided motivations some individuals may have, here are a few perceived "benefits":

Confirmation of Suspicions: Some individuals may believe that by accessing their partner's secret messages, they can confirm suspicions of infidelity or dishonesty. They see it as a way to validate their concerns and potentially uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

Sense of Control: There's a misguided perception that by monitoring a partner's messages, one can exert a sense of control over the relationship. This false sense of control may provide temporary relief from feelings of insecurity or uncertainty.

Emotional Closure: For those grappling with doubts or fears about their relationship, accessing secret messages might be seen as a way to gain closure. They may hope that uncovering the truth, even if painful, will allow them to move on from the relationship with a clearer understanding of what went wrong.

👉Related Article: Hire Professional Facebook Hackers

Trust Issues in Relationships

Using Facebook Hacker tools to spy on a partner's messages undermines the foundation of trust in a relationship. Trust is essential for maintaining healthy and meaningful connections, and violating someone's privacy erodes that trust irreparably. Even if the suspicions turn out to be unfounded, the damage to the relationship may be irreversible.

Alternatives to Using Facebook Hacker Tools

Open Communication

Instead of resorting to secretive and potentially illegal methods, couples should prioritize open and honest communication. If there are concerns or suspicions in a relationship, they should be addressed directly and respectfully. Engaging in constructive dialogue allows both partners to express their feelings and concerns without resorting to invasive tactics.

Seeking Professional Help

If suspicions of infidelity or other serious issues persist, couples may benefit from seeking professional help. Relationship counseling or therapy can provide a safe and supportive environment for addressing underlying issues and improving communication skills. A trained therapist can help couples navigate challenges and strengthen their relationship in a healthy and constructive manner.

Final Touch

While the temptation to use Facebook Hacker tools to check a partner's secret messages may be strong, it's essential to consider the ethical and legal implications of such actions. Invading someone's privacy without their consent not only violates trust and mutual respect but also carries significant legal risks. Instead of resorting to secretive methods, couples should prioritize open communication and seek professional help if needed to address underlying issues in their relationship.

[sailahina]

I get why people are bummed about Twitter but the longest I was active on Twitter was for like...four months? And I kept waiting to enjoy it but all that happened was I'd fight with strangers online and find things to be angry about.

I know losing it as a journalistic/news source is shitty, but honestly I'm glad to see it go. It's just a breeding ground for hatred.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Frank Wilhoit described conservativism as “exactly one proposition”:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.This is likewise the project of corporatism. Tech platforms are urgently committed to ensuring that they can do anything they want on their platforms — and they’re even more dedicated to the proposition that you must not do anything they don’t want on their platforms.

They can lock you in. You can’t unlock yourself. Facebook attained network-effects growth by giving its users bots that logged into Myspace on their behalf, scraped the contents of their inboxes for the messages from the friends they left behind, and plunked them in their Facebook inboxes.

Facebook then sued a company that did the same thing to Facebook, who wanted to make it as easy for Facebook users to leave Facebook as it had been to get started there.

Apple reverse-engineered Microsoft’s crown jewels — the Office file-formats that kept users locked to its operating systems — so it could clone them and let users change OSes.

Try to do that today — say, to make a runtime so you can use your iOS apps and media on an Android device or a non-Apple desktop — and Apple will reduce you to radioactive rubble.

- Let the Platforms Burn: The Opposite of Good Fires is Wildfires

[vexinglyvague]

For all of five seconds I considered getting Threads, then I remembered why I left Facebook about a decade ago:

Why on earth would a Twitter-clone need my health data, financial info, and other sensitive data? And all of it linked to me? What a scumbag app

[ddejavvu]

Facebook and Snapchat all those gross gross apps keep rubbing in my face that they’re now using AI and they’re trying to shove it up my nose at every opportunity, it’s driving me crazy. FUCK OFF AI! Seriously. I don’t want to chat to my AI clone and I don’t want you to show me search terms based on NOT WHAT IM ASKING OF YOU. please bugger off forever

every time i try to search on instagram its ai program is like ohhhh did you want videos of people making pasta?? hmmm want a chicken recipe??? is that what you were looking for??? like no dumb bitch i was searching a hyperspecific username because i'm trying to follow my coworker. what about that says chicken recipe to you.

[ranidspace]

we all hate discord and they're getting worse and worse. can we all agree on One thing to go to BEFORE shit happens?

im nominating [matrix], its decentralized, like email. no matter what homeserver you're in (sort of like an email provider) you join you can communicate with users on other servers (this is not like a discord server, its like a literal hosting server room somewhere). other than that its a pretty good slack/discord clone

(mozilla has their own matrix instance btw, chat.mozilla.org, you can make your own as well and have full control over your data, but yeah make sure you find a good one with features you like)

it also doesnt matter what app you use, they all connect to the same network, you can use whatever app you like

https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/

the "idc just give me one" option is Element, one of most popular apps for it

you dont have to switch now. just get prepared and just in case some shit happens to discord that ticks you off badly enough to leave. so we dont have a twitter moment and split off into 10 different platforms

oh and if it does happen, matrix is able to communicate with other apps using "bridges" such as. well. discord, (and slack, signal, skype, telegram, facebook, sms, irc, whatever) but this does have to be enabled by the person who runs the homeserver.

[oblivion-wonderlust]

i know we hate imperialism here but,

we need to establish a colony on the facebook twitter clone thing, especially because they’re planning on bringing in fediverse support (like tumblr).

there’s a literal fight for the very soul of the app starting, contained somewhat by a lot of the current user base being people who hated twitter but in the next month or so the etiquette and the culture of the platform will be decided.

which is why it is important that, from the start, there’s a pretty sizeable queer and silly user base. building this base before twitter truly burns down will help keep dipshits away.

there hasn’t been a big app in a long time. most current social media have a massive dipshit problem because the culture there was established in the shadow of the gamer-gate era. right now they’re clinging to the dying body of twitter. we must make this new platform as inhospitable to them as possible.

this is important because when the fediverse integration kicks in, people on Threads will be able to interact with Tumblr and vice versa. it is imperative that threads become silly and gay and stay silly and gay.

[high-pot-in-noose]

Okay, after braving the wilds of Threads, I was compelled to try out a couple of other social media apps/sites as well.

I will go ahead and say that, while Threads does indeed need a lot more work, and it does indeed keep track of far more of your information than a site should period . . . the facts remain that this stage is literally just its beta, and Ol' Zuck would have already been tracking that information on you through FB and IG. TBH, if you were already using IG, there's no real reason not to use Threads outside of if you just don't want to.

That scare of 'you can't delete Threads without deleting IG!' is not technically incorrect, but it leaves out the fact that Threads isn't actually an independent app at this stage (if it'll ever be) but an off-shoot of IG. Wanting to delete your Threads account without removing your IG would be like trying to remove your basement without taking apart your house.

Also, the gist of the claim that you can't delete ignores that you can deactivate -- it's effectively the same as deleting, but it leaves you the option to come back, and prevents people from being able to snatch your handle.

Also ALSO, you can very much uninstall the physical app from your device, it's just your account will remain yours no matter what.

I don't personally recommend Threads yet since the search function is basic, tags aren't a thing yet, you can't see the posts you've like, there's no explore page or DM function, and they're still working out glitches, but those are things the staff has reported that they're actively working to address. TBH, as far as a straight bird app clone goes, it's already better than, say, Spoutible.

Now, Spoutible is purporting to be trying to be the next Twitter, but after testing out the site and app, I'd say it's more like if Twitter and Facebook had a child, but it turned out the child was actually adopted and just happened to share a number of traits with its parent sites. Spoutible is not under Muskrat's X Corp umbrella nor Zuck's Meta umbrella; they're their own thing.

Their functionality isn't great, but they technically have everything a person would want from a social media app. My main gripes are that I can't change my location to say anything but the United States (I can't select anything but the US despite there being a dropdown list), things that should scroll DON'T scroll unless you finesse it in a very non-intuitive way, and the site itself just feels rather bland. Clean, but bland.

Also, it apparently isn't available for iOS yet? This last part isn't a gripe, just a statement of bemusement. With the type of posts I see on this site, you would think it would be filled with iOS users -- these people just give off that vibe. Do with that information what you will.

The one that really surprised me, though, was Cohost. Let me say this out of the gate -- it's in beta. It's unashamedly in beta, and they have what they're working on right on the side of their main page/your dashboard at all times, but . . . it's in beta the same way that AO3 is in beta.

Cohost is known for trying to be a Twitter alternative even though they loudly reject that claim, but it actually has more in common with Tumblr. The profile page is like Twitter, but the dashboard does posts and reblogs in exactly the same manner as Tumblr, their tagging and liking function is the same, the feed is exclusively chronological, you can save post drafts, and they filter content through a blacklist as well.

Color palletes are part of their paid features at the moment, but considering it has no ads and promises to remain that way, AND the only restriction against 18+ content is that it must be tagged and marked appropriately, that's a small compensation. They're still rolling out features like asks, and DMs aren't a thing yet, but I'm actually really hopeful for this one. It gives me the same energy as when AO3 was first becoming a thing.

It's also primarily filled with furries at the moment, but that's just a matter of fact and something to be taken as a pro or con depending on the individual.

With Cohost and Pillowfort marching steadily forward in their development, I actually feel really good about Tumblrina's being able to find a new and suitable home if Tumblr ever makes itself completely uninhabitable. Really the only downsides to moving over to these two sites right away is that there are still a number of features left that Tumblr does better or has that they don't, and that there's no telling exactly when these sites will be at the state that their staff teams consider officially out of beta.

[socialnetworkingsns]

https://socialnetworking.solutions/social-engine/facebook-clone-package/

Build a Facebook clone app, your own social network.

Thinking of building your social networking app, then here's your grip. Grow your business audience with the Facebook clone. Here is SocialNetworking.Solutions to help you with the Facebook clone package to build an Android mobile app and an iOS mobile app.

Build your own Facebook clone app now.

[eswayne]

5 Half-Baked Predictions about Threads 🪡

🧵 Threads = Google+ It will probably last longer than Google’s foray into a true social network, but Threads is skyrocketing because it’s already building off other Meta products. And, much like Google did, look for Threads to be integrated into everything else Meta: WhatsApp, Oculus, their idea of the metaverse, even the Facebook app itself. 🧵Threads is the savior of Meta’s ad business Meta has lost massive troves of user data due to ad blockers, privacy sandboxes, and iOS App Tracking Transparency. They need more signals, coming in with more velocity. Nothing moves faster than a microblogging network, and Twitter (before acquisition) was making ~10% of their revenue off data licensing. More data = better ad targeting. New platform = new ad units and packages to sell. 🧵 Threads will also save Instagram Kylie Jenner-gate already told us that users (and especially influencers) want Instagram to be the place for photos, not so much Reels. TikTok already has short vertical video boxed out so well, and with Twitter becoming…whatever it is, users were already using Instagram more for *text* than ever before. Threads lets everyone get along: Instagram stays focused on photos, and celeb or influencer “I’m sorry you feel that way” confessions go on Threads, rather than posting screenshots of a Notes app page. 🧵 Threads will NOT put Meta in jeopardy with the FTC The FTC has been giving Meta the side-eye for a long time, mainly for user data privacy and anticompetitive practices. Cloning another social network *would* have been a bad move in this environment, *if* the network you were copying wasn’t already owned by another FTC pariah: Elon Musk. 🧵 Threads = Fediverse “Big Bang” You’ve been sleeping on the fediverse. You’ve vaguely heard about Mastodon or PixelFed, and possibly the ActivityPub protocol. It’s time to dive in and go deep: Threads at least *will* be part of the fediverse, and is arguably already its biggest network. (More here: https://help.instagram.com/169559812696339)

[xumoonhao]

threads is absolutely BAFFLING to me. like u mean to tell me Facebook made a twitter clone app connected to your instagram that has seemingly unfiltered access to every piece of info on your phone and millions of ppl downloaded it w/o a second thought?? we’re in hell

[theculturedmarxist]

What happened to the cycle of renewal? Where are the regular, controlled burns?

Like the California settlers who subjugated the First Nations people and declared war on good fire, the finance sector conquered the tech sector.

It started in the 1980s, the era of personal computers — and Reaganomics. A new economic and legal orthodoxy took hold, one that celebrated monopolies as “efficient,” and counseled governments to nurture and protect corporations as they grew both too big to fail, and too big to jail.

For 40 years, we’ve been steadily reducing antitrust enforcement. That means a company like Google can create a single great product (a search engine) and use investors’ cash to buy a mobile stack, a video stack, an ad stack, a server-management stack, a collaboration stack, a maps and navigation stack — all while repeatedly failing to succeed with any of its in-house products.

It’s hard to appreciate just how many companies tech giants buy. Apple buys other companies more often than you buy groceries.

These giants buy out their rivals specifically to make sure you can’t leave their walled gardens. As Mark Zuckerberg says, “It is better to buy than to compete,” (which is why Zuckerberg bought Instagram, telling his CFO that it was imperative that they do the deal because Facebook users preferred Insta to FB, and were defecting in droves).

As these companies “merge to monopoly,” they are able to capture their regulators, ensuring that the law doesn’t interfere with their plans for literal world domination.

When a sector consists of just a handful of companies, it becomes cozy enough to agree on — and win — its lobbying priorities. That’s why America doesn’t have a federal privacy law. It’s why employees can be misclassified as “gig worker” contractors and denied basic labor protections.

It’s why companies can literally lock you out of your home — and your digital life — by terminating your access to your phone, your cloud, your apps, your thermostat, your door-locks, your family photos, and your tax records, with no appeal — not even the right to sue.

But regulatory capture isn’t merely about ensuring that tech companies can do whatever they want to you. Tech companies are even more concerned with criminalizing the things you want to do to them.

Frank Wilhoit described conservativism as “exactly one proposition”:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

This is likewise the project of corporatism. Tech platforms are urgently committed to ensuring that they can do anything they want on their platforms — and they’re even more dedicated to the proposition that you must not do anything they don’t want on their platforms.

They can lock you in. You can’t unlock yourself. Facebook attained network-effects growth by giving its users bots that logged into Myspace on their behalf, scraped the contents of their inboxes for the messages from the friends they left behind, and plunked them in their Facebook inboxes.

Facebook then sued a company that did the same thing to Facebook, who wanted to make it as easy for Facebook users to leave Facebook as it had been to get started there.

Apple reverse-engineered Microsoft’s crown jewels — the Office file-formats that kept users locked to its operating systems — so it could clone them and let users change OSes.

Try to do that today — say, to make a runtime so you can use your iOS apps and media on an Android device or a non-Apple desktop — and Apple will reduce you to radioactive rubble.

Big Tech has a million knobs on the back-end that they can endlessly twiddle to keep you locked in — and, just as importantly, they have convinced governments to ban any kind of twiddling back.

This is “felony contempt of business model.”

Governments hold back from passing and enforcing laws that limit the tech giants in the name of nurturing their “efficiency.”

But when states act to prevent new companies — or users, or co-ops, or nonprofits — from making it easier to leave the platforms, they do so in the name of protecting us.

Rather than passing a privacy law that would let them punish Meta, Apple, Google, Oracle, Microsoft and other spying companies, they ban scraping and reverse-engineering because someone might violate the privacy of the users of those platforms.

But a privacy law would control both scrapers and silos, banning tech giants from spying on their users, and banning startups and upstarts from spying on those users, too.

Rather than breaking up ad-tech, banning surveillance ads, and opening up app stores, which would make tech platforms stop stealing money from media companies through ad-fraud, price-gouging and deceptive practices, governments introduce laws requiring tech companies to share (some of) their ill-gotten profits with a few news companies.

This makes the news companies partners with the tech giants, rather than adversaries holding them to account, and makes the news into cheerleaders for massive tech profits, so long as they get their share. Rather than making it easier for the news to declare independence from Big Tech, we are fusing them forever.

We could make it easy for users to leave a tech platform where they are subject to abuse and harassment — but instead, governments pursue policies that require platforms to surveil and control their users in the name of protecting them from each other.

We could make it easy for users to leave a tech platform where their voices are algorithmically silenced, but instead we get laws requiring platforms to somehow “balance” different points of view.

The platforms aren’t merely combustible, they’re always on fire. Once you trap hundreds of millions — or billions — of people inside a walled fortress, where warlords who preside over have unlimited power over their captives, and those captives the are denied any right to liberate themselves, enshittification will surely and inevitably follow.

Laws that block us seizing the means of computation and moving away from Big Tech are like the heroic measures that governments undertake to keep people safe in the smouldering wildland-urban interface.

These measures prop up the lie that we can perfect the tech companies, so they will be suited to eternal rule.

Rather than building more fire debt, we should be making it easy for people to relocate away from the danger so we can have that long-overdue, “good fire” to burn away the rotten giants that have blotted out the sun.

What would that look like?

Well, this week’s news was all about Threads, Meta’s awful Twitter replacement devoted to “brand-safe vaporposting,” where the news and controversy are not welcome, and the experience is “like watching a Powerpoint from the Brand Research team where they tell you that Pop Tarts is crushing it on social.”

Threads may be a vacuous “Twitter alternative you would order from Brookstone,” but it commanded a lot of news, because it experienced massive growth in just hours. “Two million signups in the first two hours” and “30 million signups in the first morning.”

That growth was network-effects driven. Specifically, Meta made it possible for you to automatically carry over your list of followed Instagram accounts to Threads.

Meta was able to do this because it owns both Threads and Instagram. But Meta does not own the list of people you trust and enjoy enough to follow.

That’s yours.

Your relationships belong to you. You should be able to bring them from one service to another.

Take Mastodon. One of the most common complaints about Mastodon is that it’s hard to know whom to follow there. But as a technical matter, it’s easy: you should just follow the people you used to follow on Twitter —either because they’re on Mastodon, too, or because there’s a way to use Mastodon to read their Twitter posts.

Indeed, this is already built into Mastodon. With one click, you can export the list of everyone you follow, and everyone who follows you. Then you can switch Mastodon servers, upload that file, and automatically re-establish all those relationships.

That means that if the person who runs your server decides to shut it down, or if the server ends up being run by a maniac who hates you and delights in your torment, you don’t have to petition a public prosecutor or an elected lawmaker or a regulator to make them behave better.

You can just leave.

Meta claims that Threads will someday join the “Fediverse” (the collection of apps built on top of ActivityPub, the standard that powers Mastodon).

Rather than passing laws requiring Threads to prioritize news content, or to limit the kinds of ads the platform accepts, we could order it to turn on this Fediverse gateway and operate it such that any Threads user can leave, join any other Fediverse server, and continue to see posts from the people they follow, and who will also continue to see their posts.

Rather than devoting all our energy to keep Meta’s empire of oily rags from burning, we could devote ourselves to evacuating the burn zone.

This is the thing the platforms fear the most. They know that network effects gave them explosive growth, and they know that tech’s low switching costs will enable implosive contraction.

The thing is, network effects are a double-edged sword. People join a service to be with the people they care about. But when the people they care about start to leave, everyone rushes for the exits. Here’s danah boyd, describing the last days of Myspace:

If a central node in a network disappeared and went somewhere else (like from MySpace to Facebook), that person could pull some portion of their connections with them to a new site. However, if the accounts on the site that drew emotional intensity stopped doing so, people stopped engaging as much. Watching Friendster come undone, I started to think that the fading of emotionally sticky nodes was even more problematic than the disappearance of segments of the graph. With MySpace, I was trying to identify the point where I thought the site was going to unravel. When I started seeing the disappearance of emotionally sticky nodes, I reached out to members of the MySpace team to share my concerns and they told me that their numbers looked fine. Active uniques were high, the amount of time people spent on the site was continuing to grow, and new accounts were being created at a rate faster than accounts were being closed. I shook my head; I didn’t think that was enough. A few months later, the site started to unravel.

Tech bosses know the only thing protecting them from sudden platform collapse syndrome are the laws that have been passed to stave off the inevitable fire.

They know that platforms implode “slowly, then all at once.”

They know that if we weren’t holding each other hostage, we’d all leave in a heartbeat.

But anything that can’t go on forever will eventually stop. Suppressing good fire doesn’t mean “no fires,” it means wildfires. It’s time to declare fire debt bankruptcy. It’s time to admit we can’t make these combustible, tinder-heavy forests safe.

It’s time to start moving people out of the danger zone.

It’s time to let the platforms burn.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Tiktok's enshittification

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.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two sided market,” where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.

When a platform starts, it needs users, so it makes itself valuable to users. Think of Amazon: for many years, it operated at a loss, using its access to the capital markets to subsidize everything you bought. It sold goods below cost and shipped them below cost. It operated a clean and useful search. If you searched for a product, Amazon tried its damndest to put it at the top of the search results.

This was a hell of a good deal for Amazon’s customers. Lots of us piled in, and lots of brick-and-mortar retailers withered and died, making it hard to go elsewhere. Amazon sold us ebooks and audiobooks that were permanently locked to its platform with DRM, so that every dollar we spent on media was a dollar we’d have to give up if we deleted Amazon and its apps. And Amazon sold us Prime, getting us to pre-pay for a year’s worth of shipping. Prime customers start their shopping on Amazon, and 90% of the time, they don’t search anywhere else.

That tempted in lots of business customers — Marketplace sellers who turned Amazon into the “everything store” it had promised from the beginning. As these sellers piled in, Amazon shifted to subsidizing suppliers. Kindle and Audible creators got generous packages. Marketplace sellers reached huge audiences and Amazon took low commissions from them.

This strategy meant that it became progressively harder for shoppers to find things anywhere except Amazon, which meant that they only searched on Amazon, which meant that sellers had to sell on Amazon.

That’s when Amazon started to harvest the surplus from its business customers and send it to Amazon’s shareholders. Today, Marketplace sellers are handing 45%+ of the sale price to Amazon in junk fees. The company’s $31b “advertising” program is really a payola scheme that pits sellers against each other, forcing them to bid on the chance to be at the top of your search.

Searching Amazon doesn’t produce a list of the products that most closely match your search, it brings up a list of products whose sellers have paid the most to be at the top of that search. Those fees are built into the cost you pay for the product, and Amazon’s “Most Favored Nation” requirement sellers means that they can’t sell more cheaply elsewhere, so Amazon has driven prices at every retailer.

Search Amazon for “cat beds” and the entire first screen is ads, including ads for products Amazon cloned from its own sellers, putting them out of business (third parties have to pay 45% in junk fees to Amazon, but Amazon doesn’t charge itself these fees). All told, the first five screens of results for “cat bed” are 50% ads.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payola

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 why — as Cat Valente wrote in her magesterial pre-Christmas essay — 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”:

https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other-and-start

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, who 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 fulltext 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 nonconsensually 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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

Today, Facebook is terminally enshittified, a terrible place to be whether you’re a user, a media company, or an advertiser. It’s a company that deliberately demolished a huge fraction of the publishers it relied on, defrauding them into a “pivot to video” based on false claims of the popularity of video among Facebook users. Companies threw billions into the pivot, but the viewers never materialized, and media outlets folded in droves:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-pivot-metrics-false.html

But Facebook has a new pitch. It claims to be called Meta, and it has demanded that we live out the rest of our days as legless, sexless, heavily surveilled low-poly cartoon characters.

It has promised companies that make apps for this metaverse that it won’t rug them the way it did the publishers on the old Facebook. It remains to be seen whether they’ll get any takers. As Mark Zuckerberg once candidly confessed to a peer, marvelling at all of his fellow Harvard students who sent their personal information to his new website “TheFacebook”:

> I don’t know why.

> They “trust me”

> Dumb fucks.

https://doctorow.medium.com/metaverse-means-pivot-to-video-adbe09319038

Once you understand the enshittification pattern, a lot of the platform mysteries solve themselves. Think of the SEO market, or the whole energetic world of online creators who spend endless hours engaged in useless platform Kremlinology, hoping to locate the algorithmic tripwires, which, if crossed, doom the creative works they pour their money, time and energy into:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/11/coercion-v-cooperation/#the-machine-is-listening

Working for the platform can be like working for a boss who takes money out of every paycheck for all the rules you broke, but who won’t tell you what those rules are because if he told you that, then you’d figure out how to break those rules without him noticing and docking your pay. Content moderation is the only domain where security through obscurity is considered a best practice:

https://doctorow.medium.com/como-is-infosec-307f87004563

The situation is so dire that organizations like Tracking Exposed have enlisted an human army of volunteers and a robot army of headless browsers to try to unwind the logic behind the arbitrary machine judgments of The Algorithm, both to give users the option to tune the recommendations they receive, and to help creators avoid the wage theft that comes from being shadow banned:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/tracking-exposed-demanding-gods-explain-themselves

But what if there is no underlying logic? Or, more to the point, what if the logic shifts based on the platform’s priorities? If you go down to the midway at your county fair, you’ll spot some poor sucker walking around all day with a giant teddy bear that they won by throwing three balls in a peach basket.

The peach-basket is a rigged game. The carny can use a hidden switch to force the balls to bounce out of the basket. No one wins a giant teddy bear unless the carny wants them to win it. Why did the carny let the sucker win the giant teddy bear? So that he’d carry it around all day, convincing other suckers to put down five bucks for their chance to win one:

https://boingboing.net/2006/08/27/rigged-carny-game.html

The carny allocated a giant teddy bear to that poor sucker the way that platforms allocate surpluses to key performers — as a convincer in a “Big Store” con, a way to rope in other suckers who’ll make content for the platform, anchoring themselves and their audiences to it.

Which brings me to Tiktok. Tiktok is many different things, including “a free Adobe Premiere for teenagers that live on their phones.”

https://www.garbageday.email/p/the-fragments-of-media-you-consume

But what made it such a success early on was the power of its recommendation system. From the start, Tiktok was really, really good at recommending things to its users. Eerily good:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1093882880

By making good-faith recommendations of things it thought its users would like, Tiktok built a mass audience, larger than many thought possible, given the death grip of its competitors, like Youtube and Instagram. Now that Tiktok has the audience, it is consolidating its gains and seeking to lure away the media companies and creators who are still stubbornly attached to Youtube and Insta.

Yesterday, Forbes’s Emily Baker-White broke a fantastic story about how that actually works inside of Bytedance, Tiktok’s parent company, citing multiple internal sources, revealing the existence of a “heating tool” that Tiktok employees use push videos from select accounts into millions of viewers’ feeds:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2023/01/20/tiktoks-secret-heating-button-can-make-anyone-go-viral/

These videos go into Tiktok users’ ForYou feeds, which Tiktok misleadingly describes as being populated by videos “ranked by an algorithm that predicts your interests based on your behavior in the app.” In reality, For You is only sometimes composed of videos that Tiktok thinks will add value to your experience — the rest of the time, it’s full of videos that Tiktok has inserted in order to make creators think that Tiktok is a great place to reach an audience.

“Sources told Forbes that TikTok has often used heating to court influencers and brands, enticing them into partnerships by inflating their videos’ view count. This suggests that heating has potentially benefitted some influencers and brands — those with whom TikTok has sought business relationships — at the expense of others with whom it has not.”

In other words, Tiktok is handing out giant teddy bears.

But Tiktok is not in the business of giving away giant teddy bears. Tiktok, for all that its origins are in the quasi-capitalist Chinese economy, is just another paperclip-maximizing artificial colony organism that treats human beings as inconvenient gut flora. Tiktok is only going to funnel free attention to the people it wants to entrap until they are entrapped, then it will withdraw that attention and begin to monetize it.

“Monetize” is a terrible word that tacitly admits that there is no such thing as an “Attention Economy.” You can’t use attention as a medium of exchange. You can’t use it as a store of value. You can’t use it as a unit of account. Attention is like cryptocurrency: a worthless token that is only valuable to the extent that you can trick or coerce someone into parting with “fiat” currency in exchange for it. You have to “monetize” it — that is, you have to exchange the fake money for real money.

In the case of cryptos, the main monetization strategy was deception-based. Exchanges and “projects” handed out a bunch of giant teddy-bears, creating an army of true-believer Judas goats who convinced their peers to hand the carny their money and try to get some balls into the peach-basket themselves.

But deception only produces so much “liquidity provision.” Eventually, you run out of suckers. To get lots of people to try the ball-toss, you need coercion, not persuasion. Think of how US companies ended the defined benefits pension that guaranteed you a dignified retirement, replacing it with market-based 401(k) pensions that forced you to gamble your savings in a rigged casino, making you the sucker at the table, ripe for the picking:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/25/derechos-humanos/#are-there-no-poorhouses

Early crypto liquidity came from ransomware. The existence of a pool of desperate, panicked companies and individuals whose data had been stolen by criminals created a baseline of crypto liquidity because they could only get their data back by trading real money for fake crypto money.

The next phase of crypto coercion was Web3: converting the web into a series of tollbooths that you could only pass through by trading real money for fake crypto money. The internet is a must-have, not a nice-to-have, a prerequisite for full participation in employment, education, family life, health, politics, civics, even romance. By holding all those things to ransom behind crypto tollbooths, the hodlers hoped to convert their tokens to real money:

https://locusmag.com/2022/09/cory-doctorow-moneylike/

For Tiktok, handing out free teddy-bears by “heating” the videos posted by skeptical performers and media companies is a way to convert them to true believers, getting them to push all their chips into the middle of the table, abandoning their efforts to build audiences on other platforms (it helps that Tiktok’s format is distinctive, making it hard to repurpose videos for Tiktok to circulate on rival platforms).

Once those performers and media companies are hooked, the next phase will begin: Tiktok will withdraw the “heating” that sticks their videos in front of people who never heard of them and haven’t asked to see their videos. Tiktok is performing a delicate dance here: there’s only so much enshittification they can visit upon their users’ feeds, and Tiktok has lots of other performers they want to give giant teddy-bears to.

Tiktok won’t just starve performers of the “free” attention by depreferencing them in the algorithm, it will actively punish them by failing to deliver their videos to the users who subscribed to them. After all, every time Tiktok shows you a video you asked to see, it loses a chance to show you a video it wants you to see, because your attention is a giant teddy-bear it can give away to a performer it is wooing.

This is just what Twitter has done as part of its march to enshittification: thanks to its “monetization” changes, the majority of people who follow you will never see the things you post. I have ~500k followers on Twitter and my threads used to routinely get hundreds of thousands or even millions of reads. Today, it’s hundreds, perhaps thousands.

I just handed Twitter $8 for Twitter Blue, because the company has strongly implied that it will only show the things I post to the people who asked to see them if I pay ransom money. This is the latest battle in one of the internet’s longest-simmering wars: the fight over end-to-end:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/#the-censors-pen

In the beginning, there were Bellheads and Netheads. The Bellheads worked for big telcos, and they believed that all the value of the network rightly belonged to the carrier. If someone invented a new feature — say, Caller ID — it should only be rolled out in a way that allows the carrier to charge you every month for its use. This is Software-As-a-Service, Ma Bell style.

The Netheads, by contrast, believed that value should move to the edges of the network — spread out, pluralized. In theory, Compuserve could have “monetized” its own version of Caller ID by making you pay $2.99 extra to see the “From:” line on email before you opened the message — charging you to know who was speaking before you started listening — but they didn’t.

The Netheads wanted to build diverse networks with lots of offers, lots of competition, and easy, low-cost switching between competitors (thanks to interoperability). Some wanted this because they believed that the net would someday be woven into the world, and they didn’t want to live in a world of rent-seeking landlords. Others were true believers in market competition as a source of innovation. Some believed both things. Either way, they saw the risk of network capture, the drive to monetization through trickery and coercion, and they wanted to head it off.

They conceived of the end-to-end principle: the idea that networks should be designed so that willing speakers’ messages would be delivered to willing listeners’ end-points as quickly and reliably as they could be. That is, irrespective of whether a network operator could make money by sending you the data it wanted to receive, its duty would be to provide you with the data you wanted to see.

The end-to-end principle is dead at the service level today. Useful idiots on the right were tricked into thinking that the risk of Twitter mismanagement was “woke shadowbanning,” whereby the things you said wouldn’t reach the people who asked to hear them because Twitter’s deep state didn’t like your opinions. The real risk, of course, is that the things you say won’t reach the people who asked to hear them because Twitter can make more money by enshittifying their feeds and charging you ransom for the privilege to be included in them.

As I said at the start of this essay, enshittification exerts a nearly irresistible gravity on platform capitalism. It’s just too easy to turn the enshittification dial up to eleven. Twitter was able to fire the majority of its skilled staff and still crank the dial all the way over, even with a skeleton crew of desperate, demoralized H1B workers who are shackled to Twitter’s sinking ship by the threat of deportation.

The temptation to enshittify is magnified by the blocks on interoperability: when Twitter bans interoperable clients, nerfs its APIs, and periodically terrorizes its users by suspending them for including their Mastodon handles in their bios, it makes it harder to leave Twitter, and thus increases the amount of enshittification users can be force-fed without risking their departure.

Twitter is not going to be a “protocol.” I’ll bet you a testicle¹ that projects like Bluesky will find no meaningful purchase on the platform, because if Bluesky were implemented and Twitter users could order their feeds for minimal enshittification and leave the service without sacrificing their social networks, it would kill the majority of Twitter’s “monetization” strategies.

¹Not one of mine.

An enshittification strategy only succeeds if it is pursued in measured amounts. Even the most locked-in user eventually reaches a breaking-point and walks away, or gets pushed. The villagers of Anatevka in Fiddler on the Roof tolerated the cossacks' violent raids and pogroms for years, until they were finally forced to flee to Krakow, New York and Chicago:

https://doctorow.medium.com/how-to-leave-dying-social-media-platforms-9fc550fe5abf

For enshittification-addled companies, that balance is hard to strike. Individual product managers, executives, and activist shareholders all give preference to quick returns at the cost of sustainability, and are in a race to see who can eat their seed-corn first. Enshittification has only lasted for as long as it has because the internet has devolved into “five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four”:

https://twitter.com/tveastman/status/1069674780826071040

With the market sewn up by a group of cozy monopolists, better alternatives don’t pop up and lure us away, and if they do, the monopolists just buy them out and integrate them into your enshittification strategies, like when Mark Zuckerberg noticed a mass exodus of Facebook users who were switching to Instagram, and so he bought Instagram. As Zuck says, “It is better to buy than to compete.”

This is the hidden dynamic behind the rise and fall of Amazon Smile, the program whereby Amazon gave a small amount of money to charities of your choice when you shopped there, but only if you used Amazon’s own search tool to locate the products you purchased. This provided an incentive for Amazon customers to use its own increasingly enshittified search, which it could cram full of products from sellers who coughed up payola, as well as its own lookalike products. The alternative was to use Google, whose search tool would send you directly to the product you were looking for, and then charge Amazon a commission for sending you to it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10ft5iv/comment/j4znb8y/

The demise of Amazon Smile coincides with the increasing enshittification of Google Search, the only successful product the company managed to build in-house. All its other successes were bought from other companies: video, docs, cloud, ads, mobile; while its own products are either flops like Google Video, clones (Gmail is a Hotmail clone), or adapted from other companies’ products, like Chrome.

Google Search was based on principles set out in founder Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s landmark 1998 paper, “Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine,” in which they wrote, “Advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of consumers.”

http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/

Even with that foundational understanding of enshittification, Google has been unable to resist its siren song. Today’s Google results are an increasingly useless morass of self-preferencing links to its own products, ads for products that aren’t good enough to float to the top of the list on its own, and parasitic SEO junk piggybacking on the former.

Enshittification kills. Google just laid off 12,000 employees, and the company is in a full-blown “panic” over the rise of “AI” chatbots, and is making a full-court press for an AI-driven search tool — that is, a tool that won’t show you what you ask for, but rather, what it thinks you should see:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23563851/google-search-ai-chatbot-demo-chatgpt

Now, it’s possible to imagine that such a tool will produce good recommendations, like Tiktok’s pre-enshittified algorithm did. But it’s hard to see how Google will be able to design a non-enshittified chatbot front-end to search, given the strong incentives for product managers, executives, and shareholders to enshittify results to the precise threshold at which users are nearly pissed off enough to leave, but not quite.

Even if it manages the trick, this-almost-but-not-quite-unusuable equilibrium is fragile. Any exogenous shock — a new competitor like Tiktok that penetrates the anticompetitive “moats and walls” of Big Tech, a privacy scandal, a worker uprising — can send it into wild oscillations:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/08/watch-the-surpluses/#exogenous-shocks

Enshittification truly is how platforms die. That’s fine, actually. We don’t need eternal rulers of the internet. It’s okay for new ideas and new ways of working to emerge. The emphasis of lawmakers and policymakers shouldn’t be preserving the crepuscular senescence of dying platforms. Rather, our policy focus should be on minimizing the cost to users when these firms reach their expiry date: enshrining rights like end-to-end would mean that no matter how autocannibalistic a zombie platform became, willing speakers and willing listeners would still connect with each other:

https://doctorow.medium.com/end-to-end-d6046dca366f

And policymakers should focus on freedom of exit — the right to leave a sinking platform while continuing to stay connected to the communities that you left behind, enjoying the media and apps you bought, and preserving the data you created:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

The Netheads were right: technological self-determination is at odds with the natural imperatives of tech businesses. They make more money when they take away our freedom — our freedom to speak, to leave, to connect.

For many years, even Tiktok’s critics grudgingly admitted that no matter how surveillant and creepy it was, it was really good at guessing what you wanted to see. But Tiktok couldn’t resist the temptation to show you the things it wants you to see, rather than what you want to see. The enshittification has begun, and now it is unlikely to stop.

It's too late to save Tiktok. Now that it has been infected by enshittifcation, the only thing left is to kill it with fire.

[Image ID: Hansel and Gretel in front of the witch's candy house. Hansel and Gretel have been replaced with line-drawings of influencers, taking selfies of themselves with the candy house. In front of the candy house stands a portly man in a business suit; his head is a sack of money with a dollar-sign on it. He wears a crooked witch's hat. The cottage has the Tiktok logo on it.]

[theemilysw]

I really hope threads don't hecome the next big app I don't wanna be on a Facebook Twitter clone. Hope it dies like every other Twitter clone