Cory Doctorow takes a term born in the digital trenches—enshittification—and weaponizes it as a universal lens for understanding how power extracts value from the powerless. By stripping the concept of its tech-specific origins, he reveals a disturbing pattern: from labor markets to marriage, the mechanism for degradation is always the same—lock-in followed by exploitation. This is not just a critique of bad apps; it is a structural diagnosis of how zero-sum economics corrupts every system it touches.
The Mechanics of Extraction
Doctorow begins by dismantling the economic justification for surveillance pricing, where prices are set based on a buyer's desperation rather than market competition. He writes, "The fatal flaw in the economist's justification for surveillance pricing... is that a seller who commands higher prices from a buyer deprives other sellers of that buyer's money." This argument reframes the issue from individual consumer pain to systemic economic collapse. When an airline extracts every cent from a grieving passenger, that money is gone from the local coffee shop, the hardware store, and the broader economy. The author effectively illustrates that monopoly power doesn't just hurt the victim; it starves the entire ecosystem.
He connects this to the historical concept of natural monopolies, noting that before cheap solar power, electricity providers could charge "everything you could afford for the least electricity you could survive on." This historical context, reminiscent of the regulatory battles over utilities in the early 20th century, grounds the abstract theory in tangible reality. The core of the argument is that lock-in is the prerequisite for abuse. Without the ability to leave, users have no bargaining power. As Doctorow puts it, "Any source of lock-in becomes an invitation to shift value away from your customers and suppliers to yourself."
Enshittification happens when someone sets out to reduce your choices, and then uses that lock-in to make things worse for you in order to make things better for themself.
Beyond the Screen
The most striking move in the piece is Doctorow's expansion of the term into non-digital spheres. He argues that enshittification requires intent: it is not just hard bargaining, but a strategic weakening of others' positions to facilitate future exploitation. He applies this to labor, stating, "If the business lobby bribes Republican state legislators to pass 'right to work' laws... we can call that enshittification." By linking regulatory capture directly to the degradation of worker conditions, he bypasses the usual partisan noise to focus on the institutional mechanics of power.
This framing extends even to personal relationships and immigration. Doctorow suggests that restricting a population's ability to migrate is a form of state enshittification, as it forces citizens to endure political abuse they would otherwise flee. He notes that "tying your work visa to your employer is very enshittification-friendly," a point that highlights how bureaucratic constraints can be used to trap vulnerable populations. Critics might argue that applying a term like "enshittification" to complex social institutions like marriage dilutes its meaning, yet Doctorow's insistence on the intent to reduce choice preserves the term's analytical sharpness.
The AI Paradox
When turning to artificial intelligence, Doctorow identifies a unique tension. AI systems are inherently prone to enshittification because their "black box" nature allows companies to hide price gouging or inferior service behind the veil of "hallucinations." He asks, "If you ask a chatbot to solve your problem and it does so in an inefficient way that burns a zillion tokens... is that the chatbot malfunctioning, or is that price-gouging?" This ambiguity is the perfect cover for extraction.
However, Doctorow introduces a counter-intuitive twist regarding the financial viability of these companies. He points out that "AI is the money-losingest project the human race has ever attempted," with firms burning through trillions. This creates a paradox: while cash-strapped companies are tempted to enshittify their products to survive, the sheer scale of their losses suggests they may collapse before they can fully exploit their users. "If these companies are doomed no matter what they do, then the enshittification will take care of itself when they go bankrupt," he writes. This observation challenges the prevailing narrative of AI as an inevitable, unstoppable force, suggesting instead that its current business model is fundamentally fragile.
Bottom Line
Doctorow's greatest strength is his ability to unify disparate forms of exploitation under a single, actionable framework, proving that the erosion of choice is the common thread in everything from credit unions to marriage laws. The argument's only vulnerability lies in its reliance on intent; proving that a corporation or legislature planned to reduce choices for future profit is often legally and evidentially difficult. Nevertheless, the piece serves as a vital warning: wherever lock-in exists, the machinery of enshittification is already turning.