Reversing Enshittification: Cory Doctorow’s Bold Vision for Tech’s Redemption Through Reverse Engineering

In the ever-evolving world of technology, where innovation often clashes with corporate greed, science fiction author and tech activist Cory Doctorow has emerged as a vocal critic of what he terms “enshittification.” This concept, which Doctorow popularized, describes the gradual degradation of digital platforms and products as companies prioritize profits over user experience. In a recent article, Doctorow argues that legalizing reverse engineering could be the key to halting this decline, offering a pathway to reclaim control over our devices and services.

Doctorow’s piece, published in The Guardian, posits that the current U.S. administration’s policies, including tariffs and a potential Brexit-like separation from global trade norms, might inadvertently create opportunities for tech reform. He suggests that by challenging international laws that restrict modifications to American tech products, countries could foster an environment where reverse engineering thrives. This practice involves dissecting and altering existing technology to improve or customize it, potentially countering the locked-down ecosystems that big tech companies enforce.

The idea stems from Doctorow’s observation that enshittification follows a predictable pattern: platforms start by attracting users with quality services, then squeeze suppliers, and finally exploit users through ads, fees, and reduced functionality. Examples abound, from social media giants degrading content quality to smart devices that become obsolete due to manufacturer decisions. Doctorow envisions a world where legal reverse engineering allows third parties to create interoperable alternatives, breaking the monopolistic holds.

The Roots of Enshittification and Its Widespread Impact

Doctorow’s term “enshittification” gained traction after he coined it in 2022, as detailed in his book discussed on Democracy Now!. He explains it as the collapse of discipline among America’s ruling class, leading to declining standards across online platforms. Recent news from The Conversation extends this to academic publishing, outlining five stages where profit motives erode quality and accessibility.

In the tech sector, this manifests in products designed with planned obsolescence or restrictive digital rights management (DRM). For instance, users of smart home devices often find themselves unable to repair or modify their own property due to legal barriers like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the U.S. Doctorow argues that international trade agreements, pushed by the U.S., have globalized these restrictions, preventing foreign innovators from offering better alternatives.

Posts on X highlight growing frustration with this trend. Users lament how tech companies remove features or lock out modifications, with one post noting the rapid countermeasures that once existed but are now stifled by legal hurdles. This sentiment aligns with Doctorow’s call for change, emphasizing that reverse engineering could restore user agency.

Legal Barriers and the Push for Reform

At the heart of Doctorow’s proposal is the critique of laws that criminalize reverse engineering. In the U.S., sections of the DMCA prohibit circumventing DRM, even for legitimate purposes like repair or interoperability. Globally, trade deals like those under the World Trade Organization enforce similar rules, as Doctorow elaborates in his Guardian op-ed. He points to the current political climate, with U.S. President Trump’s tariffs disrupting global trade, as a potential catalyst for renegotiating these agreements.

A Slashdot summary of Doctorow’s article highlights his optimism: “There is only one reason the world isn’t bursting with wildly profitable products and projects that disenshittify the US’s defective products: its (former) trading partners were bullied…” This bullying, he claims, can be undone if countries seize the opportunity presented by shifting trade dynamics.

Industry insiders note that reverse engineering has historical precedents in driving innovation. For example, in the early days of computing, compatibility efforts like those for IBM PCs spurred competition. Legalizing it broadly could lead to a renaissance in tech, where users modify cars, appliances, and software without fear of lawsuits.

Potential Benefits for Consumers and Innovators

Imagine a farmer who can now hack their tractor’s software to perform repairs without dealer intervention, or a developer creating apps that bypass restrictive app store policies. Doctorow envisions this as the “beginning of the end for enshittification,” allowing for “disenshittified” products that prioritize user needs. In a talk referenced on media.ccc.de, he discusses building a post-American internet resistant to such decay.

Recent developments at CES 2026, as reported by iFixit, call out gadgets exemplifying enshittification, like surveillance-heavy appliances. Legal reverse engineering could empower right-to-repair movements, already gaining traction in states like California and New York.

On X, discussions echo this, with posts criticizing tech giants for offshoring jobs while locking down tech, contrasting with initiatives like the CHIPS Act that aim to revitalize U.S. manufacturing. Doctorow’s advocacy ties into broader calls for ethical tech, warning against hype cycles that promise much but deliver little.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Proposal

Not everyone agrees with Doctorow’s optimistic view. Critics argue that legalizing reverse engineering could undermine intellectual property rights, potentially stifling innovation by reducing incentives for original creators. Tech companies like Apple and Google have long defended DRM as necessary to protect against piracy and ensure security.

Moreover, geopolitical tensions from tariffs could lead to fragmented tech standards rather than global cooperation. A post on X from an industry figure questions whether such changes would distort company decisions, echoing concerns in Inside Higher Ed about the broader implications of enshittification in education and tech.

Doctorow counters this by emphasizing that the current system already favors monopolies, leading to less innovation. He references historical examples where open standards propelled growth, suggesting that reverse engineering would democratize tech development.

Global Perspectives and Future Implications

Internationally, countries like those in the EU are already pushing back with regulations like the Digital Markets Act, which promotes interoperability. Doctorow’s vision aligns with this, proposing that a “post-American” tech ecosystem could emerge, as discussed in his CCC talk. In Canada, BetaKit notes how enshittification has become undeniable in daily tech interactions.

X posts from activists like Doctorow himself stress the need to change laws banning modifications, pointing to a 25-year history of U.S.-imposed restrictions. This could lead to profitable ventures in disenshittification, creating jobs and better products worldwide.

For industry insiders, the key takeaway is the potential shift in power dynamics. If reverse engineering becomes legal, startups could flourish by offering add-ons or alternatives to big tech’s offerings, fostering competition.

Case Studies in Reverse Engineering Success

Historical case studies bolster Doctorow’s argument. The rise of Android as an open alternative to iOS demonstrates how reverse engineering and open-source principles can challenge dominance. In automotive tech, third-party modifications have improved safety and efficiency, often against manufacturer wishes.

Recent news from Phys.org applies enshittification to publishing, showing how open-access models could reverse the trend through similar disassembly and rebuilding efforts.

On X, developers share stories of past innovations stifled by current laws, underscoring the urgency for change. Doctorow’s appearance on Boing Boing via The Daily Show further popularizes these ideas, reaching a wider audience.

Toward a Disenshittified Tech Ecosystem

Implementing Doctorow’s ideas would require legislative action, starting with reforming the DMCA and influencing trade policies. Advocacy groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, where Doctorow is affiliated, are already pushing for such changes.

The economic impact could be profound, with new markets emerging for repair and customization services. As StartupNews.fyi reports, this could end enshittification by enabling profitable disenshittification projects.

In the end, Doctorow’s proposal invites a reevaluation of how we regulate technology. By embracing reverse engineering, we might not only fix broken products but also rebuild trust in the digital realm.

Industry Responses and Ongoing Debates

Tech leaders have mixed reactions. Some, like those in open-source communities, applaud the idea, while proprietary software firms lobby against it. X posts from influencers highlight ideological divides, with one calling out Silicon Valley’s hype as a tool for quick profits at users’ expense.

Articles in The New Yorker expand on Doctorow’s book, framing enshittification as a cultural phenomenon beyond tech.

As we move forward, the debate will likely intensify, with potential for policy shifts that could redefine tech’s future. Doctorow’s vision offers a compelling blueprint for those weary of declining quality, urging a collective push toward empowerment and innovation.