Academics are completely free to rebrand the naming if they need to sound more pompous and serious, the semantics are the same.
If you want laws to be passed, you need senators and judges and legal scholars to engage with your ideas. None of those people are going to take the idea of “enshittification” seriously with a name like that, nor are they going to put their name on a bill referencing it. There are plenty of examples of citizen activism that lead to a bill, and these bills often are name directly after the activist/movement name.
I’ll say it again: if you want political change, accept that you need to care about the names of concepts.
The terminology is irrelevant. Senators and judges won't deal with this because they're being paid not to, not because there's a rude word in the name.
Government itself has been enshittified, clearly and comprehensively.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/14/pearl-clutching/
"just use one of the dozens of words that failed to gain public attention over the past 25 years".
I'm also not super interested in his rant about people criticizing his approach are just "pearl clutchers."
Other people have written more comments in this thread explaining a different opinion. It doesn't really matter how many times you've explained yours. For what it's worth, I think an ancestor comment to this one poignantly addresses a particular perspective:
> The terminology is irrelevant. Senators and judges won't deal with this because they're being paid not to, not because there's a rude word in the name.
It might help to tailor your arguments to this perspective as I suspect it is the most common one. I also get the feeling that's how Doctorow figures it's "pearl clutching": it's less about the "bad word" and more about the "profits".
Seriously, can you back up this claim?
Then also notice the total lack of major legislation with vulgar, offensive, or immature words in the name.
It's all political theater and a real political will to end enshittification will end it. That is what's missing, not a positive-sounding name.
This is a non issue
It's not about communication, since for communication sake it's much more easily understood by a larger cohort of people if colloquial terms are used, it's simply the need for seriously-sounding jargon to be taken seriously, which is just a play in appearances.
If you want political change you need political action, the name of concepts is just one avenue for that.
Yes, and that class of people are the ones actually making the laws. The ones that could solve the problems discussed in the article (like nursing apps) legally.
Which is, I assume, actually the point.