Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Cory Doctorow at CF 25: How Enshittification Conquered the 21st Century and How We Can Overthrow It | CloudFest | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Cory Doctorow at CF 25: How Enshittification Conquered the 21st Century and How We Can Overthrow It
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
The core theme is the "inshitification" of online platforms and digital services, a three-stage process where companies initially provide value to users, then lock them in, and finally extract maximum value for shareholders at the expense of user experience and business customers. This phenomenon is driven by policy changes that have eroded competition, regulation, and interoperability, enabling corporate greed.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
or Facebook employees who were drunk,
which makes sense because if I worked
for Facebook, I would be drunk all the
time. Tech companies were not born in
shitified. We they spent years, decades
making good [Music]
products. Hello. Hi. Nice to see you
all. So, a couple of years ago, I coined
this term inshitification to describe
how online platforms decay. And it
describes a three-stage process. First,
you have platforms that are good to
their end users, but find a way to lock
those end users in. So, think of Google,
which initially minimized ads and
maximized the spend on engineering for
high-quality search results. But as they
were doing that, they were also buying
their way to dominance. So that no
matter which browser you used, no matter
what mobile operating system you were
using, no matter which carrier you had,
you would always be searching on Google
by default, spending tens uh um so uh
and so Google then spent tens of
billions of dollars every year to make
sure that no one would ever try a search
engine that wasn't Google, thus locking
their users in. So that is stage one in
which a platform is good to its end
users but also locks in those users. In
stage two, platforms start to abuse
their users in order to tempt in
business customers. So for Google,
obviously that's advertisers and web
publishers. So today an ever larger
fraction of a Google results results
page is given over to ads and those ads
are marked out with ever subtler ever
smaller type that says the word ad next
to it. So uh and Google uses commercial
surveillance to uh target ads to us. So
that's stage two making things better
for business customers while making
things worse for end users. But those
business customers also become dependent
on the platform just like the users are
locked into the platform. Uh after all
as soon as a business is getting like
10% of its customer or its revenue from
one source it becomes very vulnerable to
that source. very few businesses can
stand a 10 or 20% reduction overnight in
their gross revenue. And so once the
business customers are locked into the
platform, you get stage three of
inshitification. This is where Google
claws back all the value in the platform
uh both from business customers and from
end users leaving behind just like a
homeopathic residue of value just enough
to keep everyone locked in while the
rest of the value is gathered in for
shareholders and executives. And Google
becomes inshitified. And you've probably
noticed this. Google search results suck
these days. And thanks to the 2019
Department of Just or thanks to the 2024
Department of Justice antitrust case
against Google, we know why it sucks. It
starts in 2019 when Google found that
its uh growth had stalled out. After
all, more than 90% of the world was
using Google to search. And we searched
for everything. Any idea that came into
our head, we typed into a search box.
And always that search box belonged to
Google. So how is Google going to grow?
There were no more users left to switch
to Google. The users who use Google were
already using Google to search for
everything. Well, after that uh trial
last year, we got these internal memos
that showed what Google did in order to
boost growth. What they did was they
made search worse. They reduced the
systems accuracy so that you would have
to search more than once to get the
results that you were looking for, which
meant that they would have more queries
and therefore more opportunities to
serve ads to you. And even as Google was
doing that to its end users, it was also
doing another dirty trick to its
business customers. Google and Meta
entered into a secret illegal collusive
arrangement they cenamed Jedi Blue that
raised the price of advertising and
reduced the payout to publishers. So
that's how we get to the inshitified
Google that we all live with today where
every query starts with a blob of AI
slop at the top of it and then there's
five paid results tagged with the word
ad in eight point type that's 90% gray
on white which in turn sits over 10
spammy links from SEO companies that
have generated their own AI slop and yet
we still keep using Google because we
are all locked into Google and that is
in shitification as seen from the side.
First a c a company is good to its end
users. Then uh it locks them in and then
it is good to its business customers uh
which then who then get locked in and
then it it takes all the value for
itself leaving behind a giant pile of
That is in shitification a tragedy
in three
acts. And shitification follows the
cloud because every app makes a call to
the cloud to ask how it could perform at
every moment. Take the way that gig
workers are paid. The legal scholar Vina
Dubil coined a term to describe how Uber
drivers wages are calculated. She calls
it algorithmic wage discrimination. And
here's how the trick works. If you're an
Uber driver and you've been picky about
the jobs that you're willing to take
recently, the app starts to put the wage
offer up and up and up. But if you yield
to temptation and start to take those
higher payouts, the wage starts to go
down again, toggling down in random
intervals at small increments designed
to be below the threshold for human
perception until eventually the Uber
driver finds himself uh having gone into
debt to buy a new car, having given up
the side hustles that they had that used
to let them be more picky about Uber
with their wage descending and
descending until they end up seeking
government assistance just to buy
groceries. This is the technical
mechanism by which inshitification takes
place and I call it twiddling. Digital
businesses have infinite flexibility
that comes from the marvelous
flexibility of the computers that sit
underneath them. And that means that
every firm can reach into its business
logic at will and twiddle the knobs that
control the fundamental aspects of that
business. So every time you interact
with a firm, everything is different.
The price, the cost, the search
rankings, the recommendations. Twiddling
is just a crude task that's done
quickly. Any task that's simple but
timeconuming, as we know, is a natural
for automation. The wage theft of
algorithmic wage discrimination would be
unbearably tedious and labor intensive
and expensive to perform manually. No
19th century boiler room full of guys in
green eye shades slaving over ledgers
could do this. You need digitalization
to do this. You need the cloud to do
this. The bosses who are doing this,
they're not more evil than the bosses we
had 10, 20, or 100 years ago. These are
just the same bosses with better tools.
Digitalization, the weaving of cloud
computing through a firm or a sector,
enables the kind of twiddling that
allows a firm to swish to shift value
around from business users to end users,
from end users back to business users,
back to the shareholders and the
investors, uh, leaving behind nothing
but a pile of And every sector is
moving to the cloud which means that
inshitification is coming to every
sector. Which is why it's foolish to say
if you're not paying for the product,
you're the product. This is a dead end.
The surveillance capitalism idea says
that companies like Apple are virtuous
alternatives because Apple is charging
us money and not attention, which means
that they can treat us better. They
don't have to exploit us. But uh and
that is a superficially logical idea.
After all, in 2022, Apple did add a
little checkbox to iOS that allows you
to opt out of thirdparty surveillance,
most notably the surveillance of Meta
and its products, Facebook and
Instagram. And 96% of Apple users ticked
the don't spy on me box. We have to
assume the other 4% were either drunk or
Facebook employees or Facebook employees
who were drunk, which makes sense
because if I worked for Facebook, I
would be drunk all the time. Thank
you. So, on the face of it, it seems
like Apple is not treating its customers
like the product. But as this was going
on, as the tick box for don't spy on me
was being added to iOS, Apple shipped
another secret feature to iOS, a new way
to spy on iOS users for Apple's own ad
targeting service. This is exactly the
same purpose, targeting ads to you based
on the places you've been, the things
you'd searched for, the communications
you'd had, the links you'd clicked on.
Now, Apple did not ask its customers for
permission to spy on them. It didn't let
them opt out of the spying. It didn't
tell them about the spying when the
newspapers printed that it was illegally
and secretly spying on its users. Apple
lied about it. So, Apple treats its
business customers, the app vendors,
like they're the product. It takes 30
cents out of every euro that those app
vendors bring in. Uh that is 3,000% the
normal payment processing fee. Uh Apple
treats its end users like the product.
You shell out €1,000 for a phone and you
still get spied on to target ads to you.
Apple is treating everyone like the
product. In in shitification, the
product is just whatever you can
productize. Everyone is the product.
Everyone gets twiddled because you have
been conscripted into the tech industry
because your industry was digitalized.
So it's tempting to blame the cloud for
this. But tech companies were not born
in shitified. We they spent years,
decades making good products. If you're
old enough to remember the launch of
Google, you will recall that at the
outset searching on Google was magic.
You could ask Jeeves questions for a
million years and you would never get an
answer as crisp, as useful, and as
helpful as the answer you would get from
just typing a few vaguely descriptive
search terms into a Google box. That's
why we bought iPhones. That's why we
joined our friends on Facebook. All of
these services were born on the cloud.
They could have enshified at any time,
but they didn't until they did. And then
they all did it at once.
Inshitification was not caused by
changes to technology or the character
of the people who ran technology firms.
It was caused by changes to the policy
environment. After all, social factors
are far more important than the
parameters of a technology. Social
factors are the difference between a
chime in your car that warns you when
you've crossed the lane line and a
system that tells your insurance company
that you drifted out of your lane so
they can add €10 to your insurance bill
this month. We changed the rules of the
game in living memory by named parties
undertook these change. They were warned
at the time about the likely results of
these changes and they today are very
rich and very respected and they have
never faced any accountability for
creating this primogenic environment
which led to a vast inshittening of
everything. And I think that there is
some good news buried in this hypothesis
because if inshitification is the result
not of a new kind of evil person or of
the great forces of history bearing down
on this moment to turn everything into
but rather the result of specific
policy choices. Then we can reverse
those policies. We can make better ones.
We can emerge from this moment, the
inshitta scene, and we can consign the
initiat to the scrap heap of history,
making it a mere transitional state
between the old good internet that we
remember and a new good internet that we
deserve. So, let's talk about the kind
of corporation that emerges when you
create this chimogenic environment.
Every firm wants to maximize profits.
Every user you don't spend on suppliers,
workers, or product quality is a euro
you retain for executives and investors.
But companies can't just charge infinity
and pay nothing because no one would
work for them and no one would buy those
products. Those market constraints act
as a disciplining force on firms and the
way that they treat the people that they
buy and sell things from. And in tech
there are three constraints, three
anti-inchitificatory sources of
discipline that makes products and
services better. Now the first
constraint obviously is the market. All
other things being equal, a business
that charges more and delivers less will
lose customers to firms that are more
generous about how much value they share
with their customers, their suppliers,
and their workers. This is the
ideological basis of antitrust law,
which is what our American cousins call
competition law. And their first
antitrust law came in 1890 with John
Sherman's Sherman Act. And when Senator
Sherman was stumping for this act, he
said on the floor of the Senate, "If we
would not endure a king as a political
power, we should not endure a king over
the production, transportation, and sale
of the necessaries of life. If we would
not sub submit to an emperor, we should
not submit to an autocrat of
trade. Lacking competitors, companies
become autocrats of trade. They become
too big to fail, which makes them too
big to jail, which means that they're
too big to care. So, what happened to
that disciplining force of competition?
Well, we killed it. Starting about 40
years ago, neoliberal economists adopted
a radical new antitrust theory called
consumer welfare. They threw out John
Sherman's idea that we should be on the
watch for autocrats of trade and instead
they installed a new idea that
monopolies are presumptively efficient.
Uh they did this all around the world in
the EU, in the US, in the UK and across
Asia. And the idea was that if Google
has a 90% search market share, which it
does, then we should assume that Google
is the best search engine ever, the best
search engine possible, and that the
only reason that a better search engine
hasn't stepped in is that Google is so
skilled, so efficient, that there is no
conceivable way to improve on it. We can
tell that Google is the best because
Google has a monopoly. And we can tell
that Google has a good monopoly because
it is the best. So 40 years ago we
adopted this explicitly pro- monopoly
policy and 40 years later we have
monopolies. Monopolies in
pharmaceuticals, beer, glass bottles,
vitamin C, athletic shoes, microchips,
cars, mattresses, eyeglasses, and of
course professional
wrestling. The economists who conceived
of those policies are still around
today. They're still polishing their
fake Nobel prizes, teaching at elite
elite schools, making billions of
dollars consulting for blue chip
companies. It's like we used to put down
rat poison and we didn't have a rat
problem and then these guys told us to
stop and now rats are chewing our faces
off and there they are making these
innocent faces saying, "How can you be
so sure that our anti-rat policies are
responsible for the rat problems we have
today? Maybe we are simply living in the
time of the rat. Maybe sunspots caused
rats to multiply beyond all measure. And
if those rats then bought the rat poison
factories and shut them down, well, so
what of it? Shutting down rat poison
factories after you've decided not to
put down rat poison, that is
economically rational. It is a parto
optimal decision.
Markets don't discipline comp tech tech
companies because tech companies don't
compete with their rivals. They buy
their rivals. Now that's a quote from
Mark Zuckerberg who famously said, "It
is better to buy than to compete." Which
is why Mark Zuckerberg bought Instagram
for a billion dollars when it only had
12 employees and 25 million registered
users. But I said there are three forces
that discipline competition. And the
second of these forces, that's
regulation. the discipline that is
imposed by governments and it's a
mistake to see the discipline of markets
and the discipline of states as being
separate. They are intimately connected
because competition is a necessary
condition for effective regulation. Once
a sector cartelizes, once it collapses
into oligarchy, once it becomes so
inbred that it develops a Habsburg jaw,
once it turn once the internet became
five giant websites filled with
screenshots of the other four, then that
sector captures its regulators because a
sector with a
hundredmemes is a rabble. They are at
each other's throat. They can't agree on
anything. They can't agree on how to
lobby. But when a sector turns into five
companies, it is a conspiracy in
waiting. A sector that has been boiled
down to a mere handful of firms can
agree on a common lobbying position. And
they are so insulated from what Peter
Teal calls wasteful competition that
they are a slosh in cash and they
mobilize that cash to turn their
regulatory priorities into regulations.
In other words, they capture their
regulators. So regulatory capture may
sound abstract and complicated, but I'll
put it into concrete terms. The GDPR is
today 9 years old. And small EU tech ad
tech firms, companies that were small
enough to fail and therefore small
enough to jail, they went extinct in
droves after the GDPR was passed. But
big US tech companies, most notably
Google and Meta, they continue to wipe
their butts with the GDPR. How do they
get away with this? Simple. They pretend
they're Irish. Happy St. Patrick's
Day. Ireland is a tax haven and every
tax haven is a crime haven because a
company that can pretend that it's Irish
this week, next week it can pretend that
it's Luxembourge, Criate, Maltese or
Danish or Dutch rather. So to keep a
company from decamping to a more pliable
competitor nation, tax havens have to
offer a basket of regulatory gifts to
the countries that h that headquarter
there. Which is why in Ireland, the data
protection regulator barely gets out of
bed. And when they do, they only give
companies the softest of wrist slaps.
And so, US tech companies that pretend
to be Irish violate the GDPR. And once
those cases arrive in Ireland, they die.
And it's not just Ireland. In the UK,
the antitrust regulators called the
Competition and Markets Authority. And
until very recently, it was run by a
very effective fellow named Marcus
Boarink. But last month, the prime
minister of the United Kingdom, Kier
Starmer, fired Marcus Bokerink and
replaced him with a guy called Doug
Gerr, whose previous job was being the
head of Amazon
UK. So competition is dead. Regulation
is dead. Companies are no longer
disciplined by markets, nor are they
disciplined by states. But there are
three forces that discipline firms that
contribute to an inhospitable
inhospitable environment for the
reproduction of sociopathic and
shitifying monsters in the seauite. So
let's talk about the other force my
favorite one interoperability. The
principle of two or more things working
together. In the non-digital world
interop is hard to make a light socket
that works with any light bulb. You're
going to have to agree on the direction,
the pitch, and the diameter of the
thread, the voltage, the amperage, and
the wattage of the socket, or someone
gets their hand blown off the next time
they change a light bulb. But in the
digital world, interrupt is built in
because the only computer we know how to
make is the touring complete universal
vonoyman machine, a computing machine
capable of running every valid program,
which means that for every inshitifying
program, there is a disinitifying
program that you can install. So if HP
writes a program to ensure that its
printers only use OEM ink, someone else
can write a program that disables that
program. So you can use any ink you
want. Now in the US, a company called
PAR shipped an app to help Door Dash
drivers get paid more because in the US,
Door Dash drivers make most of their
money from tips, but the Door Dash
driver app hides the tip amount until
you irrevocably commit to the job. So,
you don't know when you accept a job
whether it's worth a $1.50 or $1.50 with
a $10 tip. So, Perah, they made an app
that peaked inside the JSON object that
got transmitted to the driver's phone,
found the tip, and revealed it so the
driver could decide whether they wanted
to take that job or not. But Door Dash
shut Paras app down because in America
apps like Perez were illegal because in
1998, Bill Clinton signed a law called
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or
DMCA. And section 1201 of the DMCA makes
it a felony to bypass an access control
for a copyrighted work with penalties of
a $500,000 fine and a 5-year prison
sentence for a first offense. which is
why com um so uh just the act of reverse
engineering the Door Dash app, peeling
away the DRM wrapper became a potential
felony, which is why companies are so
desperately horny to get you to stop
using their websites and start using
their apps. The web is open. Apps are
closed. The majority of web users have
installed an ad blocker. No app user has
installed an ad blocker because it's a
felony to distribute such a tool because
you would have to reverse engineer the
app to do it. An app is just a website
you wrap in the right kind of IP so that
the company that made it can send you to
prison if you modify it so that it
serves your interests instead of the
OEMs. Now, Europe adopted its own
version of the DMCA in 2001 with article
6 of the copyright directive which copy
pasted the US digital millennium
copyright act into European regulation.
And the commission was warned at the
time that making it illegal to bypass
digital locks would interfere with the
repair of tractors, cars, ventilators,
insulin pumps. Europeans warned them
that laws banning tampering with digital
locks would let American tech giants
corner digital markets forced them to
buy their apps for and their games from
American app stores and that they could
cream off any commission that they
wanted from. They warned that these laws
were a gift to monopolists who would
jack up the price of ink. that these
copyright laws, far from serving
European artists, would lock them into
American platforms because every time
someone in a European creators audience
buys a book or a game or a video or a
song, it is locked to an American app
and can never be unlocked. So if you're
an artistic worker and you you are in
the EU and you want to migrate to
European competitor of an American firm,
your audience can't come with you unless
they're prepared to abandon their whole
library because you cannot give them a
tool to convert their files to work from
one app and then in another. The
commission ignored these warnings and
now we live in a world where it is
illegal to tamper with digital logs.
Which means that if HP puts a digital
lock on its printers that verifies
you're not using third party ink or
refilling the HP ink cartridge, it's a
crime to bypass that lock, which is how
HP has gotten away with raising and
raising and raising the price of ink.
Printer ink today is the most expensive
fluid you can buy as a civilian without
obtaining a special permit. The colored
liquid that you print your grocery list
with costs more milliliter formiller
than the seaman of a Kentucky Derby winning
[Applause]
stallion. So that's the world the
copyright directive gave us. A world
where a farmer can't fix their tractor.
An independent mechanic can't fix your
car. Where a hospital during the
pandemic couldn't fix its ventilators.
So we got monopolies. Monopolies capture
their regulators. They get to ignore the
laws they don't like. They prevent laws
that might interfere with their
predatory conduct from being passed.
They mobilize IP laws uh uh so that they
can wield government power to prevent
new companies from entering the market.
That is the origin of inshitification.
Multiple changes to the environment led
to the three-fold collapse of
competition, regulation, and
interoperability, which created the
initic environment where the greediest,
most sociopathic elements in the body
corporate thrive at the expense of those
elements that act as moderators on their
initificatory impulses. And until we fix
that environment, the contagion will
spread to other firms. So, how do we
create a hostile environment for
inshitifiers? Well, first, there's
antitrust. After 40 years of antitrust
decline, this decade has seen a massive
increase in antitrust enforcement. Now,
it's true the prime minister of the
United Kingdom did just replace the head
of the Competition and Markets Authority
with the guy who used to run Amazon UK.
But the thing that makes this so tragic
is that the Competition and Markets
Authority has done incredible work and
they did it under a conservative
government. And in the EU, we've got the
Digital Markets Act and the Digital
Services Act going after the uh the big
tech with both barrels shifting GDPR
enforcement to uh away from Ireland and
to the federal courts. And in other
countries around the world, Australia,
Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, and
China, yes, including China, there are
new antitrust laws, new major antitrust
enforcement actions, and these comp
these countries collaborate with each
other. So, we had the UK Competition and
Markets Authority using its
investigatory powers to research and
publish a deep market study on Apple's
abuse of 30% app tax. And then the EU
used that report as the basis for an
enforcement action against Apple, which
took billions of euros out of them. And
then the South Korean and Japanese
enforcers translated the European case
and ran it successfully on their
countries, too. Well, what are we going
to do about regulatory capture? People
are getting smarter about regulatory
capture. Uh Europe Europe has passed
these muscular right to repair laws.
They have the DMA uh moving uh uh and
repair regard. But the DMA and these
repair regulations have been hamstrung
because neither of these laws permit
Europeans to acquire tools to break a
digital lock. which means that you only
get to add a third party app store to
your iPhone if you do so on the terms
that Apple has pushed through the
European Commission and those terms are
nearly impossible to satisfy and it
still means you can't interpret a car's
diagnostic messages so any mechanic can
fix it uh and so on because the digital
locks stop you from doing it because
giving someone a tool to break a digital
lock remains illegal under article six
of the copyright directive and of course
every printer, every smart speaker,
every car, every tractor, every
appliance Every medical implant has a
digital lock that stops you from fixing
it, modifying it or using third party
parts, software or consumables with it.
Which means that the big tech
disciplining forces of these laws on
repair and interoperability have become
hamstrung. Well, why don't we just get
rid of article six of the copyright
directive? Well, to understand that, you
have to understand why the copyright
directive was passed in the first place.
It was because the US trade
representative said that if Europe
wanted tariff-free access to American
markets, they would have to pass this
law. Now, I don't know if you've
heard, Donald Trump is getting rid of
tariff-free access to American markets.
Now, the reflexive response to this has
been to threaten retaliatory tariffs.
This is what we've done in my country of
Canada. Like all the best Americans, I'm
a Canadian. Um, [Applause]
[Applause]
Retaliatory tariffs make every American
good that you import more expensive for
the people who live in your country,
which is a very weird way to punish
America. It's like Europe is punching
itself in the face so hard that they
hope that America says,
"Ouch." You know what would be better?
If the European Union laws that protect
US big tech companies were abolished so
that European competitors could step in,
make it legal to reverse engineer,
jailbreak, and modify American
technology products and services. Make
it legal for European mechanics to
jailbreak a Tesla and unlock every
subscription feature like autopilot and
full access to your battery for one
price forever. And when you sell it, the
next owner will get those features as
well, meaning your car is now worth more
used. That is how you hurt Elon Musk,
not by being performatively offended by
his Nazi salute. He likes the attention.
You have to strike at his rent
extracting insanely high margin sources
of recurring revenue. You have to kick
him right in the
Let Europeans stand up a European app
store for games consoles and mobile
devices that charges 3% to process a
transaction, not 30%. So every European
news outlet that sells subscriptions
through an app and every European
software author uh musician and writer
who sells through a mobile platform or a
games uh platform gets a 25% increase in
revenue overnight before they've signed
up a single new customer. But of course,
they will sign up new customers by
selling jailbreaking software and access
to European app stores for every mobile
device and games console to everyone in
the world. Um, and by pitching every
games publisher and app maker on selling
through those European app stores uh to
customers everywhere without paying the
30% tax to American monopolists, they
could sell every mechanic in the world a
hundred euro per month subscription to a
universal diagnostic tool. and every
farmer in the world could buy a kit that
would let them fix their John Deere
tractor. They would beat a path to your
door. The EU could become a tech export
powerhouse while making everything
cheaper for European citizens, while
making everything more profitable uh for
every for anyone who sells media or
software in an app store. And this is
the best part. They would do it by
frontally assaulting the most lucrative
lines of business of the most profitable
companies in the S&P 500 whose CEO sat
behind Trump on the dis zeroing out
those recurring sources of revenue
immediately globally overnight forever.
That is how you win a trade
war. We are entering a period of
omniambolic poly crisis. The long
ominous rumble of climate change,
authoritarianism, genocide, xenophobia,
and transphobia turned into an
avalanche. The perpetrators of these
crimes against humanity have weaponized
the internet, colonizing the 21st
century's digital nervous system, using
it to attack its host, threatening
civilization itself. The insidernet was
purpose-built for this kind of
apocalyptic co-option organized around
giant corporations who would trade a
habitable planet and human rights for a
3% tax cut who blocked the
interoperability that would let us
escape their clutches. It did not have
to be this way. The initiat was not
inevitable. We do not have to be eternal
prisoners of the catastrophic policy
blunders of clueless lawmakers. A new
good internet is possible and necessary.
We can build it. We can imbue it with
the technological self-determination of
the old good internet and the ease of
use of web 2.0. We can build a place
where we can resist and survive climate
collapse, fascism, genocide, and
authoritarianism. A new good internet.
We can build that internet and we must. Thank
Thank [Applause]
[Applause]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
