Former President Jimmy Carter landed an essential blow toward equity in U.S. history. He started to break down sections of the antitrust system to address the growing corporate concentration power. His administration had a profound impact on the way that corporate influence on government was understood and accepted. With the policies of Ronald Reagan’s administration came a counter-revolution that rolled back antitrust protections. To make sense of the current dynamics of giant corporations like Amazon, we have to understand their historical context. That context is important, particularly as Amazon comes under more fire for its practices—which some critics have dubbed a new kind of corporate bad faith, “enshittification.”
Carter’s crusade to reform the antitrust system took place amid a growing corporate power tide throughout the 1970s. Understanding that enormous corporations might themselves be the greatest danger to healthy competition and consumers alike, the Carter administration tried to reassert regulatory control over monopolistic behemoths. This program faced backlash just as Reagan took office, soon after reversing much of Carter’s efforts. As Reagan set conservative policies in place, he created a new era, one in which corporate behemoths could thrive without any strings attached.
Ironically enough, most of the policies usually associated with Reagan’s revolution were actually born under Carter. His aim was to appeal to all those newly energized conservative voters. This strategy inadvertently crafted the corporate environment that Amazon now thrives in. Today, fierce business practices take precedence over the level playing field.
The Transformation of Amazon
First conceived under the original name Relentless, Amazon began as Jeff Bezos’s audacious dream to be the everything online store. Along the way, it became the retail colossus that it is today. Critics say that its tactics point to a more insidious shift in corporate America. Amazon’s strategy involves analyzing sales data from independent merchants to identify best-selling items and subsequently cloning those products, effectively sidelining original sellers.
This practice has a chilling effect on fair competition. Merchants find themselves competing against a company that has access to their sales metrics. This has led many original sellers to experience their products plummet in SERP rankings. Combined with inflation, that’s a significant shift that makes those projects less visible and less profitable.
Amazon’s tactics provide a clear example of what author Cory Doctorow has labeled “enshittification.” This phenomenon, first named in 2022, describes platforms that initially provide users with positive experiences before learning how to weaponize technology against users to increase profits. This cyclical pattern is reflected across industries and platforms. At first, they capture goodwill, but then they backpedal and implement strategies that prioritize their business customers at the expense of users.
“What do you expect? Capitalism always produces crises of production. Enshittification is just a sweary euphemism for capitalism.” – Unknown
A Historical Context of Antitrust Laws
From the 1890s until the late 20th century, U.S. antitrust laws served as a bulwark against the unchecked power of large corporations. In doing so, these laws understood that size can be a threat, and they sought to preserve the benefits of fair competition and protect consumers. In some ways, under Carter’s presidency, there was an effort to address this imbalance and provide room to grow for corporations.
Carter’s administration recognized that corporate power required careful regulation, yet Reagan’s era saw a shift back to laissez-faire policies that favored business interests. This dramatic regulatory change enabled the rise of companies such as Amazon to dominate the marketplace and provided much less oversight than decades prior.
As Amazon continues to expand its influence, it raises questions about the efficacy of current regulations in curbing corporate power. Without strong antitrust laws, critics say, companies are free to engage in practices that stifle competition and exploit consumers.
The Consequences of Regulatory Laxity
Enshittification isn’t just a good term for arguing that Amazon sucks. What happens when antitrust enforcement is weakened everywhere. Not just the bad actors Platforms usually begin with pro-creator practices, flailing around before focusing on making money by extracting value from creators. Those once advantageous partnerships turn sour when corporate greed becomes the focus over users’ happiness.
The enshittification cycle demonstrates an intrinsic flaw in platform business models.
Innovation areas
They start out with a value proposition to lure users and establish a user number critical mass to viability. But once they achieve dominance, they leverage their position by treating business customers’ needs as paramount while leaving individual users to fend for themselves.
This dynamic is an illustration of a larger current running through capitalism. Like all corporations, they are under pressure to achieve short-term returns at the expense of responsible practices and competition. Without strong regulations, we get a regulatory swamp where consumer interests are a perk to be cut in the name of corporate profit.