#platformcapitalism — Public Fediverse posts

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

Fear and Loathing of AI (Part V): The Real Product Isn’t AI — It’s Compliance

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News — with OpenAI ChatGPT

Every major technology claims to sell capability.

What it actually sells is behavior.

Artificial intelligence is marketed as intelligence, automation, assistance, and insight. But those are not the real product. They are the wrapper.

The real product is compliance.

From tools to rulebooks

AI systems do not merely help people work. They define how work is allowed to happen.

They decide:

• what is acceptable output,
• what counts as efficiency,
• what language is permitted,
• what pace is required,
• what deviation triggers review.

Once embedded, these systems stop being optional tools and start functioning as invisible rulebooks.

You are not just using AI.
You are being shaped by it.

Normalizing the machine’s priorities

AI systems optimize for what they can measure.

That sounds neutral. It isn’t.

What gets measured becomes what matters:

• speed over care,
• volume over judgment,
• consistency over insight,
• compliance over discretion.

Human nuance becomes noise.
Context becomes friction.

Over time, workers internalize this logic. They adjust themselves to match the system rather than questioning whether the system is correct.

That is not assistance.
That is conditioning.

Consent by exhaustion

Most people do not choose compliance.

They accept it because resisting it is exhausting.

Opting out means:

• losing access,
• losing income,
• losing relevance,
• losing visibility.

So people adapt. Quietly. Incrementally. Rationally.

Each update narrows the corridor.
Each “improvement” reduces discretion.
Each convenience carries a hidden obligation.

Eventually, compliance feels like normal work.

The illusion of neutrality

AI is often described as objective.

But every AI system encodes:

• institutional priorities,
• business incentives,
• legal risk tolerance,
• and managerial worldview.

Those values are not debated by users.
They are imposed through interfaces.

When people are told “the system decided,” accountability dissolves. Authority becomes abstract. Power becomes deniable.

No one is responsible.
Everyone must comply.

Why this matters more than jobs

Job loss is visible.
Compliance is subtle.

A workforce that still exists but no longer questions:

• pacing,
• evaluation,
• fairness,
• or purpose

is easier to manage than one that resists.

The danger is not a future without work.

It is a future where work continues, but autonomy does not.

The quiet trade

AI offers convenience in exchange for conformity.

For many, that trade feels necessary. Sometimes it is.

But it should never be invisible.

Because once compliance is normalized, reclaiming discretion becomes almost impossible.

A line that still exists

AI can be useful without being authoritative.
It can assist without dictating.
It can serve without ruling.

But that only happens when:

• systems remain accountable,
• humans retain override power,
• and institutions are forced to justify decisions.

Without those limits, AI doesn’t just change work.

It trains people to accept less agency as the price of participation.

That is not progress.

That is control, automated.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

RE: https://mastodon.social/@arstechnica/116834783814639866

Fixed it for you: #Google threatens to leak stolen PII after #EU threatens Google to take away their criminal business model

#AlphabetLLC #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #privacy #CoverYourTracks #PrivacyBadger #Decentraleyes #GDPR #digitalFeudalism #platformCapitalism

Controls [from the archives, 9 May 2021]. Originally performed and recorded for the Modular World 1st anniversary show (8-9 May 2021) which was a massive livestream event of 33+ hrs during the pandemic lockdowns.

During the lockdown years, Modular World became one example of a fairly niche thing gathering people together worldwide to make experimental art online - when it was not possible to organize the usual small local performances - to create something positive and reach more people than they ever could individually. As the pandemic finally, thankfully, subsided, however, it seems that people went back to the enclosed local communities, and these types of global online communities lost their drive. 

Also the rapidly accelerating #enshittification cycle of the past few years has buried the visibility of these kinds of communities from all major social media platforms. Of course, as Cory Doctorow ( @pluralistic ) has been pointing out for years, the enshittification of these platforms started much earlier. But somehow amid the pandemic, this niche scene still seemed to flourish, and it was only after Silicon Valley lined up to kiss the ring that the aggressive changes to the algorithms really seemed to change things. 

Maybe this is correlation more than causation, but as activity at such niche scenes is often also created by fairly principled DIY-oriented people, it seems that many (myself included) have struggled with justifying why we keep feeding these platforms. This disillusionment is further exacerbated by the rise of the AI-slopmachine that will rip off all the non-commercial work from these platforms just like everything else. Online activity that gathers enough momentum to actually keep things active has in these types of niche scenes been very much dependent on instagram and youtube. Over the past few years, the visibility of this type on stuff that doesn’t try to optimise for the alorithm has plummeted. 

Perhaps all of this has resulted in events such as the Modular World shows reaching fewer and fewer people. As wonderful as the promise of #Fediverse is, so far it seems that we’re very far from reaching the critical mass where it would actually start reaching new people. If the utopian enclave remains enclosed, it eventually dwindles away.

But we can try! I’m posting these weird little Johannes Karkia mini music videos and performances here bit by bit. It’s a transfer of archive, posted on insta & youtube over th years, and also new work now & then. 

But also Modular World does still exist! Go check out their channel: https://www.youtube.com/live/07ErB3AjlAo?is=qr9q2pXlhWm7Hie2 (Full performance of this piece, and interview with MW’s Johno Wells there on the Modular World youtube channel and on the Johannes Karkia youtube channel [link in the bio above], audio track also on Bandcamp).

#enshittification #fediverse #modularsynth #modularworld #anniversary #liveshow #electronicmusic #modulartechno #covid19 #pandemic #darkwave #eurorackmodular #community #surveillancecapitalism #platformcapitalism #algorithm #bigtech #siliconvalley #kissthering #socialmedia #utopianenclave #utopianism

As #Invidious and piped.video are not to be used by third parties (for good and understandable reasons) and for those who can't or don't want to self-host, is there still a #privacy-preserving non-#CORS #YouTube proxy REST API out there somewhere?

#FollowerPower #privacyMatters #MyPrivacyisNoneOfYourBusiness #SurveillanceCapitalism #dataCapitalism #platformCapitalism #digitalFeudalism #GDPR #predatoryCapitalism #privacyPreserving #privacyFriendly #privacyRespecting #digitalSelfDefense

UNPAID LABOR, ALGORITHMIC DENIAL, AND SYSTEMIC SABOTAGE
May 7, 2025

YouTube built an empire on our free time, our passion, our technical investments—and above all, on a promise: “share what you love, and the audience will follow.” Thousands of independent creators believed it. So did I. For ten years, I invested, produced, commented, hosted, edited, imported, repaired—with discipline, ambition, and stubborn hope, all in the shadows. What I discovered wasn’t opportunity. It was silence. A system of invisible filters, algorithmic contempt, and structural sabotage. An economic machine built on the unpaid, uncredited labor of creators who believed they had a chance. A platform that shows your video to four people, then punishes you for not being “engaging” enough. This four-part investigation details what YouTube has truly cost me—in money, in time, in mental health, and in collective momentum. Every number is cross-checked. Every claim is lived. Every example is documented. This is not a rant. It’s a report from inside the wreckage.
¯

_
INVISIBLE COMMENTS: 33,000 CONTRIBUTIONS THROWN IN THE TRASH

As part of my investigation, I decided to calculate what I’ve lost on YouTube. Not an easy task: if all my videos are shadowbanned, there’s no way to measure the value of that work through view counts. But I realized something else. The comments I leave on channels—whether they perform well or not—receive wildly different levels of visibility. It’s not unusual for one of my comments to get 500 likes and 25 replies within 24 hours. In other words, when I’m allowed to exist, I know how to draw attention.
¯

_
33,000 COMMENTS... FOR WHAT?

In 10 years of using the platform, I’ve posted 33,000 comments. Each one crafted, thoughtful, polished, aimed at grabbing attention. It’s a real creative effort: to spontaneously come up with something insightful to say, every day, for a decade. I’ve contributed to the YouTube community through my likes, my reactions, my input. These comments—modest, yes, but genuine—have helped sustain and grow the platform. If each comment takes roughly 3 minutes to write, that’s 99,000 minutes of my life—60 days spent commenting non-stop. Two entire months. Two months talking into the void.
¯

_
ALGORITHMIC INVISIBILITY

By default, not all comments are shown. The “Top comments” filter displays only a select few. You have to manually click on “Newest first” to see the rest. The way "Top comments" are chosen remains vague, and there’s no indication of whether some comments are deliberately hidden. When you load a page, your own comment always appears first—but only to you. Officially, it’s for “ergonomics.” Unofficially, it gives you the illusion that your opinion matters. I estimate that, on average, one out of six comments is invisible to other users. By comparing visible and hidden replies, a simple estimate emerges: over the course of 12 months, 2 months’ worth of comments go straight to the trash.
¯

_
TWO MONTHS A YEAR WRITING INTO THE VOID

If I’ve spent 60 days commenting over 10 years, that averages out to 6 days per year. Roughly 12 hours of writing every month. So each year, I’m condemned to 1 full day (out of 6) of content invisibilized (while 5 out of 6 remains visible), dumped into a void of discarded contributions. I’m not claiming every comment I write is essential, but the complete lack of notification and the arbitrary nature of this filtering raise both moral and legal concerns. To clarify: if two months of total usage equal 24 hours of actual writing, that’s because I don’t use YouTube continuously. These 24 hours spread across two months mean I spend about 24 minutes per day writing. And if writing time represents just one-fifth of my overall engagement — including watching — that adds up to more than 2.5 hours per day on the platform. Every single day. For ten years. That’s not passive use — it’s sustained, intensive participation. On average, this means that 15 to 20% of my time spent writing comments is dumped into a virtual landfill. In my case, that’s 24 hours of annual activity wiped out. But the proportion is what matters — it scales with your usage. You see the problem.
¯

_
THE BIG PLAYERS RISE, THE REST ARE ERASED

From what I’ve observed, most major YouTubers benefit from a system that automatically boosts superficial comments to the top. The algorithm favors them. It’s always the same pattern: the system benefits a few, at the expense of everyone else.
¯

_
AN IGNORED EDITORIAL VALUE

In print journalism, a 1,500-word exclusive freelance piece is typically valued at around €300. Most YouTube comments are a few lines long—maybe 25 words. Mine often exceed 250 words. That’s ten times the average length, and far more structured. They’re not throwaway reactions, but crafted contributions: thoughtful, contextual, engaging. If we apply the same rate, then 30 such comments ≈ €1,500. It’s a bold comparison—but a fair one, when you account for quality, relevance, and editorial intent. 33,000 comments = €1,650,000 of unpaid contribution to YouTube. YouTube never rewards this kind of engagement. It doesn’t promote channels where you comment frequently. The platform isn’t designed to recognize individuals. It’s designed to extract value—for itself.
¯

_
||#HSLdiary #HSLmichael

#DigitalLabor #InvisibleWork #ContentModeration #PlatformCapitalism #TechCriticism #UserEngagement

Choose your Future
Joshua Citarella, 2020.

#future #dystopia #platformcapitalism #surveillance #datasociety

Taken from the article https://www.e-flux.com/journal/146/610938/the-hacking-of-culture-and-the-creation-of-socio-technical-debt/