By talking about the effect (enshittification) instead of the cause (capitalism). One could read your initial comment and conclude that the only problem is enshittification, and not even think about capitalism as the cause, since you didn’t mention it.
You weren’t asked for anything, and this certainly isn’t the equivalent of book titles and the tools to make them.
It’s more like interrupting a discussion about someone who was just shot dead by police to say, “yeah, it’s called being shot”, then getting all pissy when someone tells you that actually, the broader issue is police brutality in general.
I was giving a name to a specific feature of capitalism and you were all “umm actually”-ing me that I’m talking about capitalism.
That’s like:
Me: “I really like this chocolate croissant” You: “Actually, you’re talking about a pastry 🤓”
My point is that you were mixing up cause and effect.
How?
By talking about the effect (enshittification) instead of the cause (capitalism). One could read your initial comment and conclude that the only problem is enshittification, and not even think about capitalism as the cause, since you didn’t mention it.
I’m giving the name of a process. When someone asks for the title of a book, I don’t start with Guttenberg’s printing press.
You weren’t asked for anything, and this certainly isn’t the equivalent of book titles and the tools to make them.
It’s more like interrupting a discussion about someone who was just shot dead by police to say, “yeah, it’s called being shot”, then getting all pissy when someone tells you that actually, the broader issue is police brutality in general.
Do you commonly criticize comments that don’t issue a historical paper on the background of a meme?
Do you commonly interpret criticism as a request for a thorough academic study?
Only if it’s that kind of smartypants criticism.