3 ms·

It's a silly coinage to describe a concept that has little to no roots other than 'shittification' which isn't really a word (other than the laced vulgarity), s

It's a silly coinage to describe a concept that has little to no roots other than 'shittification' which isn't really a word (other than the laced vulgarity), so I don't accept this either, so this is rounded to 0. I do not see it as a serious 'word' to be written, taught or spoken, in fact using this 'word' gives the article less credibility as it makes the article trite and childish.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
How is this different from arguing that 9 has no prime factors because you don't like 3?
Nevermark 3y ago
Except now that the term is well known it has done us all a service by dramatically drawing attention to what is happening, in a way that is clear and succinct. Nobody would be complaining if some milquetoast word was coined, and hadn’t got anyone’s attention. But that wouldn’t be better. I also happen to appreciate that the word’s undesirable connotations fit the undesirable situation it refers to perfectly. We can stop meeting in the streets, pointing our pointy fingers at big tech, and shouting “Enshittifier!” and retire the term, when they stop. Or they get stopped. in the meantime, let’s pull together to get some more helpful terms into Webster’s … Googlebleck, Debasebook, Amageddazon, Intuitwit, Oriful, along with pre-existing Crapple (too apropo!) and Microsuck. The Enshitifenagling DOGMAIC (“Dogma Ick”) Seven. Shame! Shame! (Five more times…) And I say all this with (sadness and despair, bitterness and humor, and) profound and sincere respect for all the hard work these companies did to lock me in! (Now can I please haz JIT for Vision...? I now desire to make spacial cubes - no more graphical squares for me - dance fast!)
TeMPOraL 3y ago
If it seems childish, then use shite and enshitefication for extra gravitas.
Sniffnoy 3y ago
I'm not sure what you think "etymology" or a "root" is. The word is quite regularly formed via English derivational morphology. Start with "shit", which -- like every word that isn't a pure coinage -- has an etymology[0], going back to the (hypothesized) Proto-Indo European root "skei-" (it's cognate with "scissors"!). Then it's just combined with the well-known affixes "en-" and "-ification", each of which has a history of its own (have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? There's a reason!). Like, you appear to be using these words in a nonstandard way; I'm not sure why you expect anyone to know what you're talking about as a result. I would suggest defining your terms if you want to be clear. I mean sure it's a pretty dumb word and hardly the one I'd use. But you're seemingly talking nonsense about etymology. [0] Note that "etymology" is often used to mean "known etymology", so in that sense a word can have no etymology, but that's not what I mean here.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? Well, I wouldn't wonder about a hypothetical -ifiation, because that would have involved a perceived need to derive a verb in -ate from a verb in -fy, and the English -ate derivational suffix producing verbs doesn't really provide any semantics, so there's no point in applying it to something that's already a verb. But you do raise a good point about -fication in general; I would expect the form to be -faction, as indeed it is in liquefaction and putrefaction. (Or -fection, as it is in perfection and confection.) This is because the -io(n) suffix is applied to the stem of the fourth principle part of a Latin verb, and the fourth principle part of facio is factum, not *ficatum. We see many words in -ation because many Latin verbs use the regular fourth principle part stem ending of -at-, and when you combine -io(n) onto that you get -atio(n). But we shouldn't see anything in -ication. I note that etymonline observes that petrification is "etymologically better than the more common petrifaction". This is interesting for two reasons; first, it must be many decades out of date (at least), and second, it states that the form in -fication is to be preferred to -faction. It also (under the entry for petrify) traces this to a Latin verb petrificare, but wiktionary (generally more up to date) mentions no such verb and attributes the form petrification to a formation in French. The fact that the combining form of facio, facere in Latin is -ficio, -ficere makes me suspicious of etymonline's description of "-ficare" as "the combining form of facere".

thaumasiotes 3y ago

How is this different from arguing that 9 has no prime factors because you don't like 3?

Nevermark 3y ago

Except now that the term is well known it has done us all a service by dramatically drawing attention to what is happening, in a way that is clear and succinct. Nobody would be complaining if some milquetoast word was coined, and hadn’t got anyone’s attention. But that wouldn’t be better. I also happen to appreciate that the word’s undesirable connotations fit the undesirable situation it refers to perfectly. We can stop meeting in the streets, pointing our pointy fingers at big tech, and shouting “Enshittifier!” and retire the term, when they stop. Or they get stopped. in the meantime, let’s pull together to get some more helpful terms into Webster’s … Googlebleck, Debasebook, Amageddazon, Intuitwit, Oriful, along with pre-existing Crapple (too apropo!) and Microsuck. The Enshitifenagling DOGMAIC (“Dogma Ick”) Seven. Shame! Shame! (Five more times…) And I say all this with (sadness and despair, bitterness and humor, and) profound and sincere respect for all the hard work these companies did to lock me in! (Now can I please haz JIT for Vision...? I now desire to make spacial cubes - no more graphical squares for me - dance fast!)

TeMPOraL 3y ago

If it seems childish, then use shite and enshitefication for extra gravitas.

Sniffnoy 3y ago

I'm not sure what you think "etymology" or a "root" is. The word is quite regularly formed via English derivational morphology. Start with "shit", which -- like every word that isn't a pure coinage -- has an etymology[0], going back to the (hypothesized) Proto-Indo European root "skei-" (it's cognate with "scissors"!). Then it's just combined with the well-known affixes "en-" and "-ification", each of which has a history of its own (have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? There's a reason!). Like, you appear to be using these words in a nonstandard way; I'm not sure why you expect anyone to know what you're talking about as a result. I would suggest defining your terms if you want to be clear. I mean sure it's a pretty dumb word and hardly the one I'd use. But you're seemingly talking nonsense about etymology. [0] Note that "etymology" is often used to mean "known etymology", so in that sense a word can have no etymology, but that's not what I mean here.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> have you ever wondered why there's a "c" there in that suffix instead of the more regular "-ifiation" that would result from directly combining "-ify" and "-ation"? Well, I wouldn't wonder about a hypothetical -ifiation, because that would have involved a perceived need to derive a verb in -ate from a verb in -fy, and the English -ate derivational suffix producing verbs doesn't really provide any semantics, so there's no point in applying it to something that's already a verb. But you do raise a good point about -fication in general; I would expect the form to be -faction, as indeed it is in liquefaction and putrefaction. (Or -fection, as it is in perfection and confection.) This is because the -io(n) suffix is applied to the stem of the fourth principle part of a Latin verb, and the fourth principle part of facio is factum, not *ficatum. We see many words in -ation because many Latin verbs use the regular fourth principle part stem ending of -at-, and when you combine -io(n) onto that you get -atio(n). But we shouldn't see anything in -ication. I note that etymonline observes that petrification is "etymologically better than the more common petrifaction". This is interesting for two reasons; first, it must be many decades out of date (at least), and second, it states that the form in -fication is to be preferred to -faction. It also (under the entry for petrify) traces this to a Latin verb petrificare, but wiktionary (generally more up to date) mentions no such verb and attributes the form petrification to a formation in French. The fact that the combining form of facio, facere in Latin is -ficio, -ficere makes me suspicious of etymonline's description of "-ficare" as "the combining form of facere".