Yeah, this post started as a reassurance that Tailscale wouldn’t enshittify. But it turned out to just be an argument about how to avoid enshittification that boiled down to two principles:

1. You shouldn’t make your product worse because it’ll eventually harm the company; and
2. Founders are magic and need to never turn over control of the company to others (be it new CEOs or VC) to resist enshittification.

Both are partially right and partially wrong.

For #1: Yes, making your product worse eventually harms the company. No, you can’t expect CEOs to accept that as a reason to not make their product worse because even if it harms the company, short-term incentives that lead to enshittification are eventually going to become irresistible. His comment about reaching “zen” with leveled growth and profit will never stop VCs from calling in demands and favors.

For #2: Yes, founders typically “get it” more than their VC- or failure-initiated replacements. No, that doesn’t mean founders are uniquely resistant to enshittification. This is your point too, and it’s why I don’t believe this person - they lose credibility here because they don’t acknowledge they aren’t special. Every tech bro out there thinks they’ve cracked the code to permanent tech hegemony. That exceptionalist thinking turns into enshittification, since the product-worsening or overcharging is easier to justify as temporary/necessary/not-a-big-deal (until it isn’t).

And all of this doesn’t explain why Tailscale specifically gets immunity if the principles are true.

So interesting post, and a lot more self-awareness than most founders which is still a little reassuring, but a lot of warning signs too.

Edit: clarity

That’s some quality conspiracy thinking!

But there are too many people who could have been early adopters and have any number of random motives for this to be “likely.”

Heck, I was watching Bitcoin when it was like $0.002 a coin and someone spent 10,000 (presumably home-CPU-mined) BTC to buy a pizza. There were a ton of people there at the beginning, the barrier to purchasing a ton was very low, and unlike me, a lot of them certainly had $20,000 to spare and believed in it enough to buy.

Is it just me, or is this graph (first graph in the article) completely unintelligible?

The X-axis being time is self-explanatory, but the Y-axis is somehow exponential time but then also mapping random milestones of performance, meaning those milestones are hard-linked to that time-based Y-axis? What?

They say he was arrested for the “assault,” but yep, they intentionally phrased it to conflate “verbal harassment” with actual (if true) criminal conduct. It’s a meaningless phrase.

If anything, they put it there because to the right wing base, it justifies police violence or could support disorderly conduct, or one of the other catch-all pretextual “crimes” used when police want to arrest someone for no real reason.

Even if any of them believe they are praying, their “faith” is a sham in support of their real religion: power. To Republicans, “politics” is the religion founded on increasing personal power through performative speech and conduct.

They are hollow, nihilistic simulacrums of human-like virtue, expressing themselves only to drain the actual human value and agency from the public.

The DHS views the situation differently. In a statement to NBC, a department spokesperson said that “Garcia assaulted and verbally harassed a federal agent and that he was subdued and arrested for the alleged assault”.

They say this every time, whether or not there is footage obviously proving otherwise.

Apart from being so insulting and pathetic that this is the government’s generic response to unconstitutional arrests (though he is suing under a tort law due presumptively due to qualified immunity), it’s also outright defamatory to falsely claim that someone has committed a crime and assaulted ICE.

The story doesn’t provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill’s obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE’s victims.

Yeah, Match.com isn’t satisfied until everyone is miserable.

It’s weird to think about how dominantly successful any app that took a principled position and resisted enshittification starting in 2010 would be now.

I think civilization is probably just ending after these last few generations, frankly.

Probably for the best…

At least there are no official death camps in this bill.

Sorry to be a downer, but ICE’s funding is now high enough that one of the few plausible explanations for it is that they plan to create concentration camps of immigrants (and, hey, well we have all this money and space, maybe just all other undesirables too…?)

Yes, I opt out. The point of the scan is to (1) build a thorough database (although DOGE probably already did that, we just haven’t found out yet), and (2) to accustom you to your identity not belonging to you.

The second point is the real point of opting out - as soon as nearly nobody opts out, and they’ve made headway on a database, it will no longer be optional. Opting out in that sense is the only vote you’re going to get to cast against it.

I deduce that the one nerbal has now become a priceless commodity since the last person using currency now has cornered the nerbal market.

That’s what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.

Which means the Constitution is dead letter.

It’s going to be awhile before folks recognize just how damaging this is, if it plays out as I expect.

Trump’s entire life policy is to ignore norms, contracts, laws, and opposition until he’s stopped. It’s still dumbfounding he’s gotten this far, because he’s not some strange unknown entity - he’s a typical sociopath, pushing boundaries as far as they’ll go in his favor until he’s actually prevented from doing so.

His “litigate to delay” strategy is right in line with this. And now the norm is that his administration doesn’t just get to act unlawfully until a court enjoins him from it (if even that, and if even he follows the order). It’s now that his administration gets to act unlawfully to any individual who hasn’t, on their own, challenged it and won in court. And given how fast he is normalizing fascism, even if a substantial number challenge him, in a year when the cases are “won,” it’ll be too late, the moment will be lost.

If there was any doubt as to the health of the rule of law, this is basically the end of the line.

Adams presumably is still serving Trump, and is hoping to split votes for democrats who are voting on pure incumbent name recognition.

You raise a good idea - replace this as Trump’s official portrait wherever possible.

Don’t worry, I’m sure the FTC will investigate this obvious and pernicious false labeling bait-and-switch scheme!

I switched to Rust Desk after I got repeatedly flagged for commercial use of Team Viewer and access disabled. I was doing nothing of the sort, but it happened after I accessed my personal computer on my personal phone while at work. They must have IP address checks that are extremely aggressive.

I followed their process to “verify” I was non-commercial, which was invasive and insulting, and then was flagged again.

Rust Desk works great, no problems, never using Team Viewer again.

I’m like, “Is this what normal people in 2025 watch?” I feel like an alien on earth, except the planet changed and not me.

Tried this on a private window, and yes, that’s what it looks like. Thought I’d click on Shorts and let the first 3 seconds of the opening auto-play video play. Then back to the home page and wow, full of absolute trash.

Quote for reference:

Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, told Fox News’ America’s Newsroom: “He’s been impeached twice, and now he’s still our president as well now too. It’s not going anywhere, and I don’t think that’s helpful. I think if you throw that term around that actually diminishes the severity of what impeachment is really reserved for.”

You know what else diminishes the severity of impeachment? Not impeaching impeachable conduct.