The state of streaming is... bad. It’s very bad. The first step in wanting to watch anything is a web search: “Where can I stream X?” Then you have to scroll past an AI summary with no answers, and then scroll past the sponsored links. After that, you find out that the thing you want to watch was made by a studio that doesn’t exist anymore or doesn’t have a streaming service. So, even though you subscribe to more streaming services than you could actually name, you will have to buy a digital copy to watch. A copy that, despite paying for it specifically, you do not actually own and might vanish in a few years. 

Then, after you paid to see something multiple times in multiple ways (theater ticket, VHS tape, DVD, etc.), the mega-corporations behind this nightmare will try to get Congress to pass laws to ensure you keep paying them. In the end, this is easier than making a product that works. Or, as someone put it on social media, these companies have forgotten “that their entire existence relies on being slightly more convenient than piracy.” 

It’s important to recognize this as we see more and more media mergers. These mergers are not about quality, they’re about control. 

In the old days, studios made a TV show. If the show was a hit, they increased how much they charged companies to place ads during the show. And if the show was a hit for long enough, they sold syndication rights to another channel. Then people could discover the show again, and maybe come back to watch it air live. In that model, the goal was to spread access to a program as much as possible to increase viewership and the number of revenue streams.  

Now, in the digital age, studios have picked up a Silicon Valley trait: putting all their eggs into the basket of “increasing the number of users.” To do that, they have to create scarcity. There has to be only one destination for the thing you’re looking for, and it has to be their own. And you shouldn’t be able to control the experience at all. They should.  

They’ve also moved away from creating buzzy new exclusives to get you to pay them. That requires risk and also, you know, paying creative people to make them. Instead, they’re consolidating.  

Media companies keep announcing mergers and acquisitions. They’ve been doing it for a long time, but it’s really ramped up in the last few years. And these mergers are bad for all the obvious reasons. There are the speech and censorship reasons that came to a head in, of all places, late night television. There are the labor issues. There are the concentration of power issues. There are the obvious problems that the fewer studios that exist the fewer chances good art gets to escape Hollywood and make it to our eyes and ears. But when it comes specifically to digital life there are these: consumer experience and ownership.  

First, the more content that comes under a single corporation’s control, the more they expect you to come to them for it. And the more they want to charge. And because there is less competition, the less they need to work to make their streaming app usable. They then enforce their hegemony by using the draconian copyright restrictions they’ve lobbied for to cripple smaller competitors, critics, and fair use.  

When everything is either Disney or NBCUniversal or Warner Brothers-Discovery-Paramount-CBS and everything is totally siloed, what need will they have to spend money improving any part of their product? Making things is hard, stopping others from proving how bad you are is easy, thanks to how broken copyright law is.  

Furthermore, because every company is chasing increasing subscriber numbers instead of multiple revenue streams, they have an interest in preventing you from ever again “owning” a copy of a work. This was always sort of part of the business plan, but it was on a scale of a) once every couple of years,  b) at least it came, in theory, with some new features or enhanced quality and c) you actually owned the copy you paid for. Now they want you to pay them every month for access to same copy. And, hey, the price is going to keep going up the fewer options you have. Or you will see more ads. Or start seeing ads where there weren’t any before.  

On the one hand, the increasing dependence on direct subscriber numbers does give users back some power. Jimmy Kimmel’s reinstatement by ABC was partly due to the fact that the company was about to announce a price hike for Disney+ and it couldn’t handle losing users due to the new price and due to popular outrage over Kimmel’s treatment.  

On the other hand, well, there's everything else. 

The latest kerfuffle is over the sale of Warner Brothers-Discovery, a company that was already the subject of a sale and merger resulting in the hyphen. Netflix was competiing against another recently merged media megazord of Paramount Skydance.  

Warner Brothers-Discovery accepted a bid from Netflix, enraging Paramount Skydance, which has now launched a hostile takeover.  

Now the optimum outcome is for neither of these takeovers to happen. There are already too few players in Hollywood. It does nothing for the health of the industry to allow either merger. A functioning antitrust regime would stop both the sale and the hostile takeover attempt, full stop. But Hollywood and the federal government are frequent collaborators, and the feds have little incentive to stop Hollywood’s behemoths from growing even further, as long as they continue to play their role pushing a specific view of American culture.    

The promise of the digital era was in part convenience. You never again had to look at TV listings to find out when something would be airing. Virtually unlimited digital storage meant everything would be at your fingertips. But then the corporations went to work to make sure it never happened. And with each and every merger, that promise gets further and further away.  

Note 12/10/2025: One line in this blog has been modified a few hours post-publication. The substance remains the same. 

It’s not news that Apple and Google use their app stores to shape what apps you can and cannot have on many of your devices. What is new is more governments—including the U.S. government—using legal and extralegal tools to lean on these gatekeepers in order to assert that same control. And rather than resisting, the gatekeepers are making it easier than ever. 

Apple’s decision to take down the ICEBlock app at least partially in response to threats from the U.S. government—with Google rapidly and voluntarily following suit—was bad enough. But it pales in comparison with Google’s new program, set to launch worldwide next year, requiring developers to register with the company in order to have their apps installable on Android certified devices—including paying a fee and providing personal information backed by government-issued identification. Google claims the new program of “is an extra layer of security that deters bad actors and makes it harder for them to spread harm,” but the registration requirements are barely tied to app effectiveness or security. Why, one wonders, does Google need to see your driver’s license to evaluate whether your app is safe?  Why, one also wonders, does Google want to create a database of virtually every Android app developer in the world? 

Those communities are likely to drop out of developing for Android altogether, depriving all Android users of valuable tools. 

F-Droid, a free and open-source repository for Android apps, has been sounding the alarm. As they’ve explained in an open letter, Google’s central registration system will be devastating for the Android developer community. Many mobile apps are created, improved, and distributed by volunteers, researchers, and/or small teams with limited financial resources. Others are created by developers who do not use the name attached to any government-issued identification. Others may have good reason to fear handing over their personal information to Google, or any other third party. Those communities are likely to drop out of developing for Android altogether, depriving all Android users of valuable tools. 

Google’s promise that it’s “working on” a program for “students and hobbyists” that may have different requirements falls far short of what is necessary to alleviate these concerns. 

It’s more important than ever to support technologies which decentralize and democratize our shared digital commons. A centralized global registration system for Android will inevitably chill this work. 

The point here is not that all the apps are necessarily perfect or even safe. The point is that when you set up a gate, you invite authorities to use it to block things they don’t like. And when you build a database, you invite governments (and private parties) to try to get access to that database. If you build it, they will come.  

Imagine you have developed a virtual private network (VPN) and corresponding Android mobile app that helps dissidents, journalists, and ordinary humans avoid corporate and government surveillance. In some countries, distributing that app could invite legal threats and even prosecution. Developers in those areas should not have to trust that Google would not hand over their personal information in response to a government demand just because they want their app to be installable by all Android users. By the same token, technologists that work on Android apps for reporting ICE misdeeds should not have to worry that Google will hand over their personal information to, say, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 

It’s easy to see how a new registration requirement for developers could give Google a new lever for maintaining its app store monopoly

Our tech infrastructure’s substantial dependence on just a few platforms is already creating new opportunities for those platforms to be weaponized to serve all kinds of disturbing purposes, from policing to censorship. In this context, it’s more important than ever to support technologies which decentralize and democratize our shared digital commons. A centralized global registration system for Android will inevitably chill this work. 

Not coincidentally, the registration system Google announced would also help cement Google’s outsized competitive power, giving the company an additional window—if it needed one, given the company’s already massive surveillance capabilities—into what apps are being developed, by whom, and how they are being distributed. It’s more than ironic that Google’s announcement came at the same time the company is fighting a court order (in the Epic Games v. Google lawsuit) that will require it to stop punishing developers who distribute their apps through app stores that compete with Google’s own. It’s easy to see how a new registration requirement for developers, potentially enforced by technical measures on billions of Android certified mobile devices, could give Google a new lever for maintaining its app store monopoly.  

EFF has signed on to F-Droid’s open letter. If you care about taking back control of tech, you should too. 

Knowledge production doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every great scientific breakthrough is built on prior work, and an ongoing exchange with peers in the field. That’s why we need to address the threat of major publishers and platforms having an improper influence on how scientific knowledge is accessed—or outright suppressed.

In the digital age, the collaborative and often community-governed effort of scholarly research has gone global and unlocked unprecedented potential to improve our understanding and quality of life. That is, if we let it. Publishers continue to monopolize access to life-saving research and increase the burden on researchers through article processing charges and a pyramid of volunteer labor. This exploitation makes a mockery of open inquiry and the denial of access as a serious human rights issue.

While alternatives like Diamond Open Access are promising, crashing through publishing gatekeepers isn’t enough. Large intermediary platforms are capturing other aspects of the research process—inserting themselves between researchers and between the researchers and these published works—through platformization. 

Funneling scholars into a few major platforms isn’t just annoying, it’s corrosive to privacy and intellectual freedom. Enshittification has come for research infrastructure, turning everyday tools into avenues for surveillance. Most professors are now worried their research is being scrutinized by academic bossware, forcing them to worry about arbitrary metrics which don’t always reflect research quality. While playing this numbers game, a growing threat of surveillance in scholarly publishing gives these measures a menacing tilt, chilling the publication and access of targeted research areas. These risks spike in the midst of governmental campaigns to muzzle scientific knowledge, buttressed by a scourge of platform censorship on corporate social media.

The only antidote to this ‘platformization’ is Open Science and decentralization. Infrastructure we rely on must be built in the open and on interoperable standards, and hostile to corporate (or governmental) takeovers. Universities and the science community are well situated to lead this fight. As we’ve seen in EFF’s TOR University Challenge, promoting access to knowledge and public interest infrastructure is aligned with the core values of higher education. 

Using social media as an example, universities have a strong interest in promoting the work being done at their campuses far and wide. This is where traditional platforms fall short: algorithms typically prioritizing paid content, downrank off-site links, and prioritize sensational claims to drive engagement. When users are free from enshittification and can themselves control the  platform’s algorithms, as they can on platforms like Bluesky, scientists get more engagement and find interactions are more useful. 

Institutions play a pivotal role in encouraging the adoption of these alternatives, ranging from leveraging existing IT support to assist with account use and verification, all the way to shouldering some of the hosting with Mastodon instances and/or Bluesky PDS for official accounts. This support is good for the research, good for the university, and makes our systems of science more resilient to attacks on science and the instability of digital monocultures.

This subtle influence of intermediaries can also appear in other tools relied on by researchers, while there are a number of open alternatives and interoperable tools developed for everything from citation management, data hosting to online chat among collaborators. Individual scholars and research teams can implement these tools today, but real change depends on institutions investing in tech that puts community before shareholders.

When infrastructure is too centralized, gatekeepers gain new powers to capture, enshittify, and censor. The result is a system that becomes less useful, less stable, and with more costs put on access. Science thrives on sharing and access equity, and its future depends on a global and democratic revolt against predatory centralized platforms.

EFF is proud to celebrate Open Access Week.

At EFF, we believe that tech rights are worker’s rights. Since the pandemic, workers of all kinds have been subjected to increasingly invasive forms of bossware. These are the “algorithmic management” tools that surveil workers on and off the job, often running on devices that (nominally) belong to workers, hijacking our phones and laptops. On the job, digital technology can become both a system of ubiquitous surveillance and a means of total control.

Enter the EU’s Platform Work Directive (PWD). The PWD was finalized in 2024, and every EU member state will have to implement (“transpose”) it by 2026. The PWD contains far-reaching measures to protect workers from abuse, wage theft, and other unfair working conditions.

But the PWD isn’t self-enforcing! Over the decades that EFF has fought for user rights, we’ve proved that having a legal right on paper isn’t the same as having that right in the real world. And workers are rarely positioned to take on their bosses in court or at a regulatory body. To do that, they need advocates.

That’s where unions come in. Unions are well-positioned to defend their members – and all workers (EFF employees are proudly organized under the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers).

The European Trade Union Confederation has just published “Negotiating the Algorithm,” a visionary – but detailed and down-to-earth – manual for unions seeking to leverage the PWD to protect and advance workers’ interests in Europe.

The report notes the alarming growth of algorithmic management, with 79% of European firms employing some form of bossware. Report author Ben Wray enumerates many of the harms of algorithmic management, such as “algorithmic wage discrimination,” where each worker is offered a different payscale based on surveillance data that is used to infer how economically desperate they are.

Algorithmic management tools can also be used for wage theft, for example, by systematically undercounting the distances traveled by delivery drivers or riders. These tools can also subject workers to danger by penalizing workers who deviate from prescribed tasks (for example, when riders are downranked for taking an alternate route to avoid a traffic accident).

Gig workers live under the constant threat of being “deactivated” (kicked off the app) and feel pressure to do unpaid work for clients who can threaten their livelihoods with one-star reviews. Workers also face automated de-activation: a whole host of “anti-fraud” tripwires can see workers de-activated without appeal. These risks do not befall all workers equally: Black and brown workers face a disproportionate risk of de-activation when they fail facial recognition checks meant to prevent workers from sharing an account (facial recognition systems make more errors when dealing with darker skin tones).

Algorithmic management is typically accompanied by a raft of cost-cutting measures, and workers under algorithmic management often find that their employer’s human resources department has been replaced with chatbots, web-forms, and seemingly unattended email boxes. When algorithmic management goes wrong, workers struggle to reach a human being who can hear their appeal.

For these reasons and more, the ETUC believes that unions need to invest in technical capacity to protect workers’ interests in the age of algorithmic management.

The report sets out many technological activities that unions can get involved with. At the most basic level, unions can invest in developing analytical capabilities, so that when they request logs from algorithmic management systems as part of a labor dispute, they can independently analyze those files.

But that’s just table-stakes. Unions should also consider investing in “counter apps” that help workers. There are workers that act as an external check on employers’ automation, like the UberCheats app, which double-checked the mileage that Uber drivers were paid for. There are apps that enable gig workers to collectively refuse lowball offers, raising the prevailing wage for all the workers in a region, such as the Brazilian StopClub app. Indonesian gig riders have a wide range of “tuyul” apps that let them modify the functionality of their dispatch apps. We love this kind of “adversarial interoperability.” Any time the users of technology get to decide how it works, we celebrate. And in the US, this sort of tech-enabled collective action by workers is likely to be shielded from antitrust liability even if the workers involved are classified as independent contractors.

Developing in-house tech teams also gives unions the know-how to develop the tools for organizers and workers to coordinate their efforts to protect workers. The report acknowledges that this is a lot of tech work to ask individual unions to fund, and it moots the possibility of unions forming cooperative ventures to do this work for the unions in the co-op. At EFF, we regularly hear from skilled people who want to become public interest technologists, and we bet there’d be plenty of people who’d jump at the chance to do this work.

The new Platform Work Directive gives workers and their representatives the right to challenge automated decision-making, to peer inside the algorithms used to dispatch and pay workers, to speak to a responsible human about disputes, and to have their privacy and other fundamental rights protected on the job. It represents a big step forward for workers’ rights in the digital age.

But as the European Trade Union Confederation’s report reminds us, these rights are only as good as workers’ ability to claim them. After 35 years of standing up for people’s digital rights, we couldn’t agree more.