Comment on ‘Another internet is possible’: Norway rails against ‘enshittification’

• FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Imagine a service with a set price, no ads, never increases prices except to maintain operation in the face of inflation. Not beholden to shareholders, but rather to stakeholders.

  I think that would be amazing and, in the US at least, there is a new business entity that could do that.

  One of the issues with trying to make Netflix not enshittify is that companies have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value (Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (1919) is the case if you want to read further). So if Netflix decided to try what you’re suggesting then some shareholder could sue the company and show that they’re not doing everything to maximize returns.

  There are around 40 states in the US that recognize a new corporate entity type called a Public Benefit Corporation, which is allowed to operate without the legal obligation towards profit so that the company can pursue goals other than making money. The AI company Anthropic is an example, they are a Public Benefit Corporation. Because of that fact, they’re able to take a moral stand against the US Government… a decision that will cost them money, without worrying about shareholder retaliation.

  I think eventually we’ll see more of these companies forming and I will certainly support them. However, as it stands now, we’re on our own and have to work together as a community to mitigate the worst of it. I’d certainly be interested in running a Public Benefit Corporation towards those ends, if you know anyone with a few tens of millions of dollars to burn!

  source

  • RblScmNerfHerder@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thanks for the info! IDK about PBCs. I’ll have to look that up!

    source
• ianonavy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  What you are describing is basically a worker co-op: workers decide collectively how to distribute or reinvest retained earnings and plan for down years, and there’s no rich guy who owns the company and needs it to keep growing their wealth, so there’s no one with the power and incentive to direct everyone to screw over the customers. These exist today but have a hard time scaling in capital-intensive industries like global streaming where you have to pay the thousands of laborers who work to produce the content.

  The problem is that private capital is always going to want something back; equity means ceding control, and debt at commercial rates means the repayment pressure recreates the same growth imperative you were trying to escape. This is essentially the socialist critique of capitalism. One of the more interesting socialist answers to the scaling problem is public investment banks, which can capitalize co-ops at patient rates without taking equity.

  source

  • RblScmNerfHerder@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Someone else mentioned Public Benefit Corporations. Thoughts?

    source

    • ianonavy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      A PBC still has outside equity owners who need returns and have voting power. The designation gives the board permission to weigh stakeholder interests to avoid lawsuit, but: 1) it doesn’t change what the investors who funded the company actually need from it, and 2) it doesn’t change the fact that those investors own the equity and can replace the board if they’re unhappy.

      As the other person mentioned, the problem with our current system capitalism is they still need to know someone “with tens of millions of dollars to burn.” Someone who, once they own a controlling interest, can just replace the board with people who prioritize returns. If we lived under socialism, those tens of millions of dollars would just come from the state as a low-interest loan that doesn’t confer control.

      source

      • RblScmNerfHerder@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Thanks for the info!

        source
• Murdoc@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yeah, there is a mechanism that ensures it, and that’s the interaction between competition and artificial scarcity. Companies that try to do things in the best interests of their customers and society end up either getting bought out, or out competed and die. It’s a simple matter of survival given the rules of the game that we have set up. Greed is the mechanism that keeps these rules in place and even makes them worse, sure, but then, the rules are designed to encourage and reward greed as well; a positive feedback loop. To stop it, the rules need to be changed at a deeper level than most realize or are comfortable with, despite all the many benefits.

  source
• W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Imagine a service with a set price, no ads, never increases prices except to maintain operation in the face of inflation. Not beholden to shareholders, but rather to stakeholders.

  Yarrrrr

  source