Blurblogs
Global
Popular
Log in
cjheinz's blurblog
Retired since 2012.
2268 stories
·
5 followers

Pluralistic: Facebook's fraud files (08 Nov 2025) by Cory Doctorow
Saturday November 8th, 2025 at 2:09 PM

Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
1 Comment


Today's links


A tuxedoed figure dramatically shoveing greenish pigs into a tube, from whose other end vomits forth a torrent of packaged goods. He has the head of Mark Zuckerberg's 'metaverse' avatar. He stands upon an endless field of gold coins. The background is the intaglioed upper face of the engraving of Benjamin Franklin on a US$100 bill, roughed up to a dark and sinister hue.

Facebook's fraud files (permalink)

A blockbuster Reuters report by Jeff Horwitz analyzes leaked internal documents that reveal that: 10% of Meta's gross revenue comes from ads for fraudulent goods and scams, and; the company knows it, and; they decided not to do anything about it, because; the fines for facilitating this life-destroying fraud are far less than the expected revenue from helping to destroy its users' lives:

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/

The crux of the enshittification hypothesis is that companies deliberately degrade their products and services to benefit themselves at your expense because they can. An enshittogenic policy environment that rewards cheating, spying and monopolization will inevitably give rise to cheating, spying monopolists:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/10/say-their-names/#object-permanence

You couldn't ask for a better example than Reuters' Facebook Fraud Files. The topline description hardly does this scandal justice. Meta's depravity and greed in the face of truly horrifying fraud and scams on its platform is breathtaking.

Here's some details: first, the company's own figures estimate that they are delivering 15 billion scam ads every single day, which generate $7 billion in revenue every year. Despite its own automatic systems flagging the advertisers behind these scams, Meta does not terminate their account – rather, it charges them more money as a "disincentive." In other words, fraudulent ads are more profitable for Meta than non-scam ads.

Meta's own internal memos also acknowledge that they help scammers automatically target their most vulnerable users: if a user clicks on a scam, the automated ad-targeting system floods that user's feed with more scams. The company knows that the global fraud economy is totally dependent on Meta, with one third of all US scams going through Facebook (in the UK, the figure is 54% of all "payment-related scam losses"). Meta also concludes that it is uniquely hospitable to scammers, with one internal 2025 memo revealing the company's conclusion that "It is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google."

Internally, Meta has made plans to reduce the fraud on the platform, but the effort is being slow-walked because the company estimates that the most it will ultimately pay in fines worldwide ads up to $1 billion, while it currently books $7 billion/year in revenue from fraud. The memo announcing the anti-fraud effort concludes that scam revenue dwarfs "the cost of any regulatory settlement involving scam ads." Another memo concludes that the company will not take any pro-active measures to fight fraud, and will only fight fraud in response to regulatory action.

Meta's anti-fraud team operates under an internal quota system that limits how many scam ads they are allowed to fight. A Feb 2025 memo states that the anti-fraud team is only allowed to take measures that will reduce ad revenue by 0.15% ($135m) – even though Meta's own estimate is that scam ads generate $7 billion per year for the company. The manager in charge of the program warns their underlings that "We have specific revenue guardrails."

What does Meta fraud look like? One example cited by Reuters is the company's discovery of a "six-figure network of accounts" that impersonated US military personnel, who attempted to trick other Meta users sending them money. Reuters also describes "a torrent of fake accounts pretending to be celebrities or represent major consumer brands" in order to steal Meta users' money.

Another common form of fraud is "sextortion" scams. That's when someone acquires your nude images and threatens to publish them unless you pay them money and/or perform more sexual acts on camera for them. These scams disproportionately target teenagers and have led to children committing suicide:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/02/25/teenage-boys-mental-health-suicide-sextortion-scams/78258882007/

In 2022, a Meta manager sent a memo complaining about a "lack of investment" in fraud-fighting systems. The company had classed this kind of fraud as a "low severity" problem and was deliberately starving enforcement efforts of resources.

This only got worse in the years that followed, when Meta engaged in mass layoffs from the anti-fraud side of the business in order to free up capital to work on perpetrating a different kind of scam – the mass investor frauds of metaverse and AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/07/rah-rah-rasputin/#credulous-dolts

These layoffs sometimes led to whole departments being shuttered. For example, in 2023, the entire team that handled "advertiser concerns about brand-rights issues" was fired. Meanwhile, Meta's metaverse and AI divisions were given priority over the company's resources, to the extent that safety teams were ordered to stop making any demanding use of company infrastructure, ordered instead to operate so minimally that they were merely "keeping the lights on."

Those safety teams, meanwhile, were receiving about 10,000 valid fraud reports from users every week, but were – by their own reckoning – ignoring or incorrectly rejecting 96% of them. The company responded to this revelation by vowing to reduce the share of valid fraud reports that it ignored to a mere 75% by 2023.

When Meta roundfiles and wontfixes valid fraud reports, Meta users lose everything. Reuters reports out the case of a Canadian air force recruiter whose account was taken over by fraudsters. Despite the victim repeatedly reporting the account takeover to Meta, the company didn't act on any of these reports. The scammers who controlled the account started to impersonate the victim to her trusted contacts, shilling crypto scams, claiming that she had bought land for a dream home with her crypto gains.

While Meta did nothing, the victim's friends lost everything. One colleague, Mike Lavery, was taken for CAD40,000 by the scammers. He told Reuters, "I thought I was talking to a trusted friend who has a really good reputation. Because of that, my guard was down." Four other colleagues were also scammed.

The person whose account had been stolen begged her friends to report the fraud to Meta. They sent hundreds of reports to the company, which ignored them all – even the ones she got the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deliver to Meta's Canadian anti-fraud contact.

Meta calls this kind of scam, where scammers impersonate users, "organic," differentiating it from scam ads, where scammers pay to reach potential victims. Meta estimates that it hosts 22 billion "organic" scam pitches per day. These organic scams are actually often permitted by Meta's terms of service: when Singapore police complained to Meta about 146 scam posts, the company concluded that only 23% of these scams violated their Terms of Service. The others were all allowed.

These permissible frauds included "too good to be true" come-ons for 80% discounts on leading fashion brands, offers for fake concert tickets, and fake job listings – all permitted under Meta's own policies. The internal memos seen by Reuters show Meta's anti-fraud staffers growing quite upset to realize that these scams were not banned on the platform, with one Meta employee writing, "Current policies would not flag this account!"

But even if a fraudster does violate Meta's terms of service, the company will not act. Per Meta's own policies, a "High Value Account" (one that spends a lot on fraudulent ads) has to accrue more than 500 "strikes" (adjudicated violations of Meta policies) before the company will take down the account.

Meta's safety staff grew so frustrated by the company's de facto partnership with the fraudsters that preyed on its users that they created a weekly "Scammiest Scammer" award, given to the advertiser that generated the most complaints that week. But this didn't actually spark action – Reuters found that 40% of Scammiest Scammers were still operating on the platform six months after being flagged as the company's most prolific fraudster.

This callous disregard for Meta's users isn't the result of a new, sadistic streak in the company's top management. As the whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams' memoir Careless People comprehensively demonstrates, the company has always been helmed by awful people who would happily subject you to grotesque tormets to make a buck:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/23/zuckerstreisand/#zdgaf

The thing that's changed over time is whether they can make a buck by screwing you over. The company's own internal calculus reveals how this works: they make more money from fraud – $7 billion/year – than they will ever have to pay in fines for exposing you to fraud. A fine is a price, and the price is right (for fraud).

The company could reduce fraud, but it's expensive. To lower the amount of fraud, they must spend money on fraud-fighting employees who review automated and user-generated fraud flags, and accept losses from "false positives" – overblocking ads that look fraudulent, but aren't. Note that these two outcomes are inversely correlated: the more the company spends on human review, the fewer dolphins they'll catch in their tuna nets.

Committing more resources to fraud fighting isn't the same thing as vowing to remove all fraud from the platform. That's likely impossible, and trying to do so would involve invasively intervening in users' personal interactions. But it's not necessary for Meta to sit inside every conversation among friends, trying to decide whether one of them is scamming the others, for the company to investigate and act on user complaints. It's not necessary for Meta to invade your conversations for it to remove prolific and profitable fraudsters without waiting for them to rack up 500 policy violations.

And of course, there is one way that Meta could dramatically reduce fraud: eliminate its privacy-invasive ad-targeting system. The top of the Meta ad-funnel starts with the nonconsensual dossiers Meta has assembled on more than 4 billion people around the world. Scammers pay to access these dossiers, targeting their pitches to users who are most vulnerable.

This is an absolutely foreseeable outcome of deeply, repeatedly violating billions of peoples' human rights by spying on them. Gathering and selling access to all this surveillance data is like amassing a mountain of oily rags so large that you can make billions by processing them into low-grade fuel. This is only profitable if you can get someone else to pay for the inevitable fires:

https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-zucks-empire-of-oily-rags/

That's what Meta is doing here: privatizing the gains to be had from spying on us, and socializing the losses we all experience from the inevitable fallout. They are only able to do this, though, because of supine regulators. Here in the USA, Congress hasn't delivered a new consumer privacy law since 1988, when they made it a crime for video-store clerks to disclose your VHS rentals:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

Meta spies on us and then allows predators to use that surveillance to destroy our lives for the same reason that your dog licks its balls: because they can. They are engaged in conduct that is virtually guaranteed by the enshittogenic policy environment, which allows Meta to spy on us without limit and which fines them $1b for making $7b on our misery.

Mark Zuckerberg has always been an awful person, but – as Sarah Wynn-Williams demonstrates in her book – he was once careful, worried about the harms he would suffer if he harmed us. Once we took those consequences away, Zuck did exactly what his nature dictated he must: destroyed our lives to increase his own fortune.

Hey look at this (permalink)


A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago Singapore’s stocking-foot executioner https://web.archive.org/web/20051029103210/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17057851-2,00.html

#20yrsago Cinemas as police-states: why box-office revenue is in decline? https://web.archive.org/web/20051107024915/https://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/04/how-the-mpaa/

#20yrsago Westchester Co’s clueless WiFi lawmakers demonstrate cluelessness http://www.psychicfriends.net/blog/archives/2005/11/06/idiot_politicians_in_my_neighborhood.html

#20yrsago Katamari Damacy homemade models http://www.harveycartel.org/mare/pics/katamari.html

#15yrsago Cut-up artist alphabetizes the newspaper https://web.archive.org/web/20101109012930/http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/11/kim-rugg-london-artists-knife-skills-knack-precision/

#15yrsago Colorado DA drops felony hit-and-run charges against billion-dollar financier because of “serious job implications” https://web.archive.org/web/20101108122254/http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/1078&ParentProfile=1062

#10yrsago A Freedom of Information request for UK Home Secretary Theresa May’s metadata https://www.techdirt.com/2015/11/06/uk-home-secretary-says-dont-worry-about-collection-metadata-foia-request-made-her-metadata/

#10yrsago Religious children more punitive, less likely to display altruism https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

#10yrsago Once again, the SFPD blames a cyclist for his own death without any investigation https://sfist.com/2015/11/04/sfpd_once_again_blames_cyclist_for/

#10yrsago Paid Patriotism: Pentagon spent millions bribing sports teams to recognize military service https://www.huffpost.com/entry/defense-military-tributes-professional-sports_n_5639a04ce4b0411d306eda5e

#10yrsago Spy at will! FCC won’t force companies to honor Do Not Track https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/fcc-wont-force-websites-to-honor-do-not-track-requests/

#10yrsago TPP will let banks write their own regulations and stick taxpayers with the bill https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/ttp-trade-pact-would-give-wall-street-a-trump-card-to-block-regulations/

#10yrsago Typewriter portraiture, the strange story of 1920s ASCII art https://web.archive.org/web/20151108220746/https://pictorial.jezebel.com/the-typewriter-ascii-portraits-of-classic-hollywood-and-1738094492

#5yrsago QE, inflation, slave labor and a People's Bailout https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/07/obamas-third-term/#peoplesbailout

#1yrago Antiusurpation and the road to disenshittification https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/07/usurpers-helpmeets/#disreintermediation

Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.


A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)


A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)


A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2026


Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. FIRST DRAFT COMPLETE AND SUBMITTED.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING

This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.

How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Read the whole story
cjheinz
16 hours ago
reply
Wow. Glad I quit using Meta products in 2016.
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
Share this story
Delete

Pluralistic: The enshittification of labor (07 Nov 2025) by Cory Doctorow
Friday November 7th, 2025 at 1:55 PM

Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
1 Comment and 2 Shares


Today's links


A Gilded Age editorial cartoon depicting a muscular worker and a corpulent millionaire squaring off for a fight; the millionaire's head has been replaced with the poop emoji from the cover of 'Enshittification,' its mouth covered in a grawlix-scrawled black bar.

The enshittification of labor (permalink)

While I formulated the idea of enshittification to refer to digital platforms and their specific technical characteristics, economics and history, I am very excited to see other theorists extend the idea of enshittification beyond tech and into wider policy realms.

There's an easy, loose way to do this, which is using "enshittification" to refer to "things generally getting worse." To be clear, I am fine with this:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/14/pearl-clutching/#this-toilet-has-no-central-nervous-system

But there's a much more exciting way to broaden "enshittification," which starts with the foundation of the theory: that the things we rely on go bad when the system stops punishing this kind of deliberate degradation and starts rewarding it. In other words, the foundation of enshittification is the enshittogenic policy environment:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/10/say-their-names/#object-permanence

That's where Pavlina Tcherneva comes in. Tcherneva is an economist whose work focuses on the power of a "job guarantee," which is exactly what it sounds like: a guarantee from the government to employ anyone who wants a job, by either finding or creating a job that a) suits that person's talents and abilities and b) does something useful and good. If this sounds like a crazy pipe-dream to you, let me remind you that American had a job guarantee and it was wildly successful, and created (among other things), the system of national parks, a true jewel in America's crown:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/23/foxconned/#ccc

Tcherneva's latest paper is "The Death of the Social Contract and the Enshittification of Jobs," in which she draws a series of careful and compelling parallels between my work on enshittification and today's employment crisis, showing how a job guarantee is the ultimate disenshittifier of work:

https://www.levyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/wp_1100.pdf

Tcherneva starts by proposing a simplified model of enshittification, mapping my three stages onto three of her own:

  1. Bait: Lure in users with a great, often subsidized, service.

  2. Trap: Use that captive audience to attract businesses (sellers, creators, advertisers).

  3. Switch: Exploit those groups by degrading the experience for everyone to extract maximum profit.

How do these map onto the current labor market and economy? For Tcherneva, the "bait" stage was "welfare state capitalism," which was "shaped by post–Great Depression government reforms and lasted through the 70s." This was the era in which the chaos of the Great Depression gave rise to fiscal and monetary policy that promoted macroeconomic stability. It was the era of economic safety nets and mass-scale federal investment in American businesses, through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a federal entity that expanded into directly funding large companies during WWII. After the war, the US Treasury continued to play a direct role in finance, through procurement, infrastructure spending and provision of social services.

As Tcherneva writes, this is widely considered the "Golden Age" of the US economy, a period of sustained growth and rising standard of living (she also points out that these benefits were very unevenly distributed, thanks to compromises made with southern white nationalists that exempted farm labor, and a pervasive climate of misogyny that carved out home work).

The welfare state capitalism stage was celebrated not merely for the benefits that it brought, but also for the system it supplanted. Before welfare state capitalism, we had 19th century "banker capitalism," in which cartels and trusts controlled every aspect of our lives and gave rise to a string of spectacular economic bubbles and busts. Before that, we had the "industrial capitalism" of the Industrial Revolution, where large corporations seized power. Before that, it was "merchant capitalism," and before that, feudalism – where workers were bound to a lord's land, unable to escape the economic and geographic destiny assigned to them at birth.

So welfare state capitalism was a welcome evolution, at least for the workers who got to reap its benefits. But welfare state capitalism was short-lived. To understand what came next, Tcherneva cites Hyman Minsky (whose "theory of capitalist development" provides this epochal nomenclature for the various stages of capitalism over the centuries).

Minsky calls the capitalism that supplanted welfare state capitalism "money manager capitalism," the system that reigned from the Reagan revolution until the Great Financial Crisis of 2008. This was an era of "deregulation, eroding worker power, rapid increase in inequality, and a rise of the money manager class." It's the period of financialization, which favored the creation of gigantic conglomerates that wrapped banking services (loans, credit cards, etc) around their core offerings, from GE to Amazon.

Then came the crash of 2008, which gave us our current era, the era of "international money manager capitalism," which is the system in which gigantic, transnational funds capture our economy pumping and dumping a series of scammy bubbles, like crypto, metaverse, blockchain, and (of course) AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/27/econopocalypse/#subprime-intelligence

Welfare state capitalism was the "bait" stage of the enshittification of labor. Public subsidies and regulation produced an environment in which (many) workers were able to command a large share of the fruits of their labor, securing both a living wage and old-age surety. This was the era of the "family wage," in which a single earner could supply all the necessities of life to a family: an owner-occupied home, material sufficiency, and enough left over for vacations, Christmas presents and other trappings of "the good life."

During this stage, the "social contract" meant the government training a skilled workforce (through universal education) and public goods like roads and utilities. Companies got big contracts, but only if they accepted collective bargaining from their unions. Governments and corporations collaborated to secure a comfortable requirement for workers.

But this arrangement lacked staying power, thanks to a key omission in the social contract: the guarantee of a good job. Rather than continuing the job guarantee that brought America out of the Depression, all the post-New Deal order could offer the unemployed was unemployment insurance. This wasn't so important while America was booming and employers were begging for workers, but when growth slowed, the lack of a job guarantee suddenly became the most important fact of many workers' lives.

This was foreseen by the architects of the New Deal. FDR's "Second Bill of (Economic) Rights" would have guaranteed every American "national healthcare, paid vacation, and a guaranteed job":

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

These guarantees were never realized, and for Tcherneva, this failure doomed welfare state capitalism. Unions were powerful during an era of tight labor markets and able to wring concessions out of capital, but once demand for workers ebbed (thanks to slowing growth and, later, offshoring), bosses could threaten workers with unemployment, breaking union power.

The social contract was bait, promising "economic security and decent jobs" through cooperation between the government, corporations and unions.

The switch came from Reagan, with mass-scale deregulation, a hack-and-slash approach to social spending, and the enshrining of a permanently unemployed reserve army of workers whose "job" was fighting inflation (by not having a job). Trump has continued this, with massive cuts to the federal workforce. Today, "job insecurity is not an unfortunate consequence of shifting economic winds, it is the objective of public policy."

For money manager capitalism, unemployment is a feature, not a bug – literally. Neoliberal economists invented something called the NAIRU ("non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment"), which deliberately sets out to keep a certain percentage of workers in a state of unemployment, in order to fight inflation.

Here's how that works: if the economy is at full employment (meaning everyone who wants a job has one), and prices go up (say, because bosses decide to increase their rate of profit), then workers will demand and receive a pay-rise, because bosses can't afford to fire those "greedy" workers – there are no unemployed workers to replace them.

This means that if bosses want to maintain their rate of profit, they will have to raise prices again to pay those higher wages for their workers. But after that, workers' pay no longer goes as far as it used to, so workers demand another raise and then bosses have to hike prices again (if they are determined not to allow the decline of their own profits). This is called "the wage-price spiral" and it's what happens when bosses refuse to accept lower profits and workers have the power to demand that their wages get adjusted to keep up with prices.

Of course, this only makes sense if you think that bosses should be guaranteed their profits, even if that means that workers' real take-home pay (measured by purchasing power) declines. You aren't supposed to notice this, though. That's why neoliberal economists made it a sin to ask about "distributional effects" (that is, asking about how the pie gets divided) – you're only supposed to care about how big the pie gets:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/28/imagine-a-horse/#perfectly-spherical-cows-of-uniform-density-on-a-frictionless-plane

With the adoption of NAIRU, joblessness "was now officially sanctioned as necessary for the health of the economy." You could not survive unless you had a job, not everyone could have a job, and the jobs were under control of a financialized, concentrated corporate sector. Companies merged and competition disappeared. If you refused to knuckle under to the boss at your (formerly) good factory job, there wasn't another factory that would put you on the line. The alternative to those decaying industrial jobs were "unemployment and low-wage service sector work."

That's where the final phase of the enshittification of labor comes in: the "trap." For Tcherneva, the trap is "the brutal fact of necessity itself." You cannot survive without a roof over your head, without electricity, without food and without healthcare. As these are not provided by the state, the only way to procure them (apart from inherited wealth) is through work, and access to work is entirely in the hands of the private sector.

Once corporations capture control of housing (through corporate landlords), healthcare (though corporate takeover of hospitals, pharma, etc), and power (through privatization of utilities), they can squeeze the people who depend on these things, because there is no competitor. You can't opt out of shelter, food, electricity and healthcare – at least, not without substantial hardship.

In my own theory of enshittification, platforms hunt relentlessly for sources of lock-in (e.g., the high switching costs of losing your social media community or your platform data) and, having achieved it, squeeze users and businesses, secure in the knowledge that users can't readily leave for a better service. This is compounded by monopolization (which reduces the likelihood that a better service even exists) and regulatory capture (which gives companies a free hand to squeeze with). Once a company can squeeze you, it will.

Here, Tcherneva is translating this to macroeconomic phenomena: control over the labor market and capture of the necessaries of life allows companies to squeeze, and so they do. A company rips you off for the same reason your dog licks its balls: because it can.

Tcherneva describes the era of money manager capitalism as "the slow, grinding enshittification of daily life." It's an era of corporate landlords raising the rent and skimping on maintenance, while hitting tenants with endless junk fees. It's an era of corporate hospitals gouging you on bills, skimping on care, and screwing healthcare workers. It's an era of utilities capturing their public overseers and engaging in endless above-inflation price hikes:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/24/surfa/#mark-ellis

This is the "trap" of Tcherneva's labor enshittification, and it kicked off "a decades-long enshittification of working life." Enshittified labor is "low-wage jobs with unpredictable schedules and no benefits." Half of American workers earn less than $25/hour. The federal minimum wage is stuck at $7.25/hour. Half of all renters are rent-burdened and a third of homeowners are mortgage-burdened. A quarter of renters are severely rent-burdened, with more than half their pay going to rent.

Money manager capitalism's answer to this is…more finance. Credit cards, payday loans, home equity loans, student loans. All this credit isn't nearly sufficient to keep up with rising health, housing, and educational prices. This locks workers into "a lifetime of servicing debt, incurred to simulate a standard of living the social contract had once promised but their wages could no longer deliver."

To manage this impossible situation, money manager capitalism spun up huge "securitized" debt markets, the CDOs and ABSes that led to the Great Financial Crisis (today, international money manager capitalism is spinning up even more forms of securitized debts).

In my theory of enshittification, there are four forces that keep tech platforms from going bad: competition, regulation, a strong workforce and interoperability. For Tcherneva, these forces all map onto the rise and fall of the American standard of living.

Competition: Welfare state capitalism was born in a time of tight labor markets. Workers could walk out of a bad job and into a good one, forcing bosses to compete for workers (including by dealing fairly with unions). This was how we got the "good job," one with medical, retirement, training and health care benefits.

Regulation: The New Deal established the 40-hour week, minimum wages, overtime, and the right to unionize. As with tech regulation, this was backstopped by competition – the existence of a tight labor market meant that companies had to concede to regulation. As with tech regulation, the capture of the state meant the end of the benefits of regulation. With the rise of NAIRU, regulation was captured by bosses, with the government now guaranteeing a pool of unemployed workers who could be used to terrorize uppity employees into meek acceptance.

Interoperability: In tech enshittification, the ability to take your data, relationships and devices with you when you switch to a competitor means that the companies you do business with have to treat you well, or risk your departure. In labor enshittification, bosses use noncompetes, arbitration, trade secrecy, and nondisparagement to keep workers from walking across the street and into a better job. Some workers are even encumbered with "training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) that force them to pay thousands of dollars if they quit their jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Worker power: In tech enshittification, tech workers – empowered by the historically tight tech labor market – are able to hold the line, refusing to enshittify the products they develop, with the constant threat that they can walk out the door and get a job elsewhere. In labor enshittification, NAIRU, combined with corporate capture of the necessaries of life and the retreat of unionization, means that workers have very little power to demand a better situation, which means their bosses can worsen things to their shriveled hearts' content.

As with my theory of enshittification, the erosion of worker power is an accelerant for labor enshittification. Weaker competition for workers means weaker labor power, which means weaker power to force the government to regulate. This sets the stage for more consolidation, weaker workers, and more state capture. This is the completion of the bait-trap-switch of the postwar social contract.

For Tcherneva, this enshittification arises out of the failure to create a job guarantee as part of the New Deal. And yet, a job guarantee remains very popular today:

https://www.jobguarantee.org/resources/public-support/

How would a job guarantee disenshittify the labor market? The job guarantee means a "permanent, publicly provided employment opportunity to anyone ready and willing to work, it establishes an effective floor for the entire labor market."

Under a job guarantee, any private employer wishing to hire a worker will have to beat the job guarantee's wages and benefits. No warehouse or fast-food chain could offer "poverty wages, unpredictable hours, and a hostile environment." It's an incentive to the private sector to compete for labor by restoring the benefits that characterized America's "golden age."

What's more, a job guarantee is administrable. A job guarantee means that workers can always access a safe, good job, even if the state fails to adequately police private-sector employers and their wages and working conditions. A job guarantee does much of the heavy lifting of enforcing a whole suite of regulations: "minimum wage laws, overtime rules, safety standards—that are constantly subject to political attack, corporate lobbying, and enforcement challenges."

A job guarantee also restores interoperability to the labor market. Rather than getting trapped in a deskilled, low-waged gig job, those at the bottom of the labor market will always have access to a job that comes with training and skills development, without noncompetes and other gotchas that trap workers in shitty jobs. For workers this means "career advancement and mobility." For society, "it delivers a pipeline of trained personnel to tackle our most pressing challenges."

And best of all, a job guarantee restores worker power. The fact that you can always access a decent job at a socially inclusive wage means that you don't have to eat shit when it comes to negotiating for your housing, health care and education. You can tell payday lenders, for-profit scam colleges (like Trump University), and slumlords to go fuck themselves.

Tcherneva concludes by pointing out that, as with tech enshittification, labor enshittification "is a political choice, not an economic inevitability." Labor enshittification is the foreseeable outcome of specific policies undertaken in living memory by named individuals. As with tech enshittification, we are under no obligation to preserve those enshittificatory policies. We can replace them with better ones.

If you want to learn more about the job guarantee, you can read my review of her book on the subject:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/22/jobs-guarantee/#job-guarantee

And the interview I did with her about it for the LA Times:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2020-06-24/forget-ubi-says-an-economist-its-time-for-universal-basic-jobs

Tcherneva and I are appearing onstage together next week in Lisbon at Web Summit to discuss this further:

https://websummit.com/sessions/lis25/2a479f57-a938-485a-acae-713ea9529292/working-it-out-job-security-in-the-ai-era/

And I assume that the video will thereafter be posted to Websummit's Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@websummit

Hey look at this (permalink)


A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago PATRIOT Act secret-superwarrants use is up 10,000 percent https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366_pf.html

#10yrsago Protopiper: tape-gun-based 3D printer extrudes full-size furniture prototypes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beRA4sIjxa8

#10yrsago EFF on TPP: all our worst fears confirmed https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/release-full-tpp-text-after-five-years-secrecy-confirms-threats-users-rights

#10yrsago TPP will ban rules that require source-code disclosure https://www.keionline.org/39045

#10yrsago Publicity Rights could give celebrities a veto over creative works https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/eff-asks-supreme-court-apply-first-amendment-speech-about-celebrities-0

#10yrsago How TPP will clobber Canada’s municipal archives and galleries of historical city photos https://www.geekman.ca/single-post/2015/11/the-tpp-vs-municipal-archives.html

#5yrsago HP ends its customers' lives https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/06/horrible-products/#inkwars

#1yrago Every internet fight is a speech fight https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/06/brazilian-blowout/#sovereignty-sure-but-human-rights-even-moreso

Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.


A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)


A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)


A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2026


Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. FIRST DRAFT COMPLETE AND SUBMITTED.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING

This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.

How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

Read the whole story
cjheinz
1 day ago
reply
JG, FTW!
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
Share this story
Delete

Sam Altman’s pants are totally on fire by Gary Marcus
Friday November 7th, 2025 at 1:38 PM

Marcus on AI
1 Comment

The fact that Sam Altman is a liar is no longer news. As I argued here in late 2023, Altman truly was fired for being “not completely candid” — just like the board said. Recent books by Karen Hao and Keach Hagey pretty much confirm this. I dissected his 2023 Senate testimony here.

But just in case any one was seriously still in doubt a just-released 62-page deposition from Ilya Sutskever ought to seal the deal:

A recent lawsuit furthers that sense that employees no longer trust Altman:

But it is no longer about lying to employees. It is about directly lying to the American public. Events of the last couple days surrounding Wednesday OpenAI’s CFO Sarah Friar’s call for loan guarantees have brought things to a new level.

The very idea – of having the US government bail out OpenAI from their reckless spending — is outrageous, as I explained here:

And I was far, far from alone in my fury. To fully understand what I am about to reveal, you need to understand that anger rapidly ricocheted across Washington and the entire nation. Here are two examples, one from a prominent Republican governor,

And here is another, from the White House AI Czar:

Altman, sensing that he had massively blundered, wrote a meandering fifteen-paragraph reply on X that started like this, written in full, capitalized paragraphs (unlike his usual style of short, cryptic remarks written in lowercase).

Nobody believed it. There were dozens of hostile, skeptical replies like this:

Even ChatGPT wasn’t buying it.

But that’s not the kicker.

§

The kicker is this: Sam was, once again, lying his ass off. What he meant by “we do not have or want government guarantees for OpenAI data centers” was actually that … OpenAI explicitly asked the White House office of science and technology (OSTP) to consider Federal loan guarantees, just a week earlier:

In a podcast that was probably recorded in last several days, Altman also appears to have been laying the groundwork for loan guarantees:

In short, Altman was—likely in conjunction with Nvidia, which also just seemed to be laying groundwork for a bailout—launching a full court press for loan guarantees when he got caught with hands in the cookie jar.

And then Altman lied about the whole thing to the entire world. Even David Sacks at the White House may have been conned.

Nobody should ever trust this man. Ever.

That’s what Ilya saw.

Gary Marcus was blocked on X by Kara Swisher in November 2022 for saying that the board did not trust Sam Altman. Marcus remains blocked by Ms. Swisher to this day.

This newsletter was among the first to raise questions about Sam Altman’s credibility, long before that was fashionable, and the author took a lot of heat for doing so. Please consider subscribing.

Read the whole story
cjheinz
1 day ago
reply
We're living in a griftocracy.
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
Share this story
Delete

Faking Receipts with AI by Bruce Schneier
Friday November 7th, 2025 at 10:23 AM

Schneier on Security
1 Comment

Over the past few decades, it’s become easier and easier to create fake receipts. Decades ago, it required special paper and printers—I remember a company in the UK advertising its services to people trying to cover up their affairs. Then, receipts became computerized, and faking them required some artistic skills to make the page look realistic.

Now, AI can do it all:

Several receipts shown to the FT by expense management platforms demonstrated the realistic nature of the images, which included wrinkles in paper, detailed itemization that matched real-life menus, and signatures.

[…]

The rise in these more realistic copies has led companies to turn to AI to help detect fake receipts, as most are too convincing to be found by human reviewers.

The software works by scanning receipts to check the metadata of the image to discover whether an AI platform created it. However, this can be easily removed by users taking a photo or a screenshot of the picture.

To combat this, it also considers other contextual information by examining details such as repetition in server names and times and broader information about the employee’s trip.

Yet another AI-powered security arms race.

Read the whole story
cjheinz
1 day ago
reply
Meanwhile, the planet burns.
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
Share this story
Delete

Who’s your agent? by Doc Searls
Friday November 7th, 2025 at 10:14 AM

Doc Searls Weblog
1 Comment

M.G. Siegler says AI is Breaking the Browser's Back. His problem starts with OpenAI's GPT Atlas, which some publishers won't let view their contents on the Web. For example, if you are reading this blog post with an Atlas browser, this link to the NYTimes will get you this message instead of a Web page: "ChatGPT is unable to access the contents of this website."

As for Atlas itself, Anil Dash calls it the "anti-Web browser." That's because, 

  1. "Atlas substitutes its own AI-generated content for the web, but it looks like it's showing you the web
  2. The user experience makes you guess what commands to type instead of clicking on links
  3. You're the agent for the browser, it's not being an agent for you"

Then there's Amazon vs. Perplexity, a fracas that owes to Perplexity's AI-powered Comet browser. which shops for you. Amazon prefers human shoppers, naturally. 

Comet, says Perplexity, is "Your personal assistant: What can Comet do? Discover everything that can be delegated, from wrangling inboxes to ordering groceries, staying on top of finances to planning vacations."

Okay, but is it yours? Or is it a suction cup on a corporate tentacle? For some answers, here are Comet Data Privacy & Security FAQ’s. Sure. it says lots of the right stuff. But it's a service, not something that is fully yours.

I suppose a case can be made that we now live in an age when everything is a service, and your personal agency can only be expressed online through services of one kind or another.

I don't buy that. But I can also use help explaining why. Thanks.

Read the whole story
cjheinz
1 day ago
reply
From this post, Morality™:
https://portraitofthedumbass.blogspot.com/2025/08/morality.html

“If I am granting a piece of code agency, you’re goddam right I am setting the bar VERY high.”
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
Share this story
Delete

TIL: “Key man risk refers to the potential threat a company faces... by Jason Kottke
Friday November 7th, 2025 at 10:07 AM

kottke.org
1 Comment
TIL: “Key man risk refers to the potential threat a company faces when a crucial employee, often a key executive or expert, is no longer available.” I think KDO has key person risk, although maybe I overestimate my VORP.

💬 Join the discussion on kottke.org →

Read the whole story
cjheinz
1 day ago
reply
This used to be called "truck factor" - how many people would it take to be hit by trucks to shut a company down.
Lexington, KY; Naples, FL
evmcl
1 day ago
"Bus factor" was what is is called in our circles, but it is the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
cjheinz
1 day ago
We got Truck Factor from 1 of the pattern language books. We then had an employee hit by a furniture delivery truck, so we quit using it. Too personal.
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories