this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)

News

36086 readers
5161 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

US stock markets have been hit by a further wave of AI jitters, this time from yet another viral – and completely speculative – warning about the impact of the technology on the world’s largest economy.

The latest foreboding is from Citrini Research, a little-known US firm that provides insights on “transformative ‘megatrends’”. Its post on Substack, which it called a “scenario, not a prediction”, rattled investors by portraying a near future in which autonomous AI systems – or agents – upend the entire US economy, from jobs to markets and mortgages.

Citrini’s scenario begins now and ends in June 2028, with US unemployment cresting over 10% and an Occupy Silicon Valley movement setting up camp outside OpenAI and Anthropic’s offices. In the interim, a series of events triggered by the widespread use of AI agents guts software companies and ripples outwards, hitting private credit and mortgages, and leading to an unchecked downward spiral.

Speculative as it is, the scenario has unnerved investors. The S&P dropped more than 1% on Monday, and the software component of the index fell to its lowest level since Trump’s “liberation day” tariff announcement in April. Doubtless some of the wobble is attributable to Trump’s latest tariffs, but Uber, American Express, Mastercard and DoorDash, specifically named in Citrini’s report, all lost between 4% and 6%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean certain parts of this article indeed seem stupid, but some minor statements give away the game in ways I wish were more clear to every day people.

Over the past fifty years, the U.S. economy built a giant rent-extraction layer on top of human limitations: things take time, patience runs out, brand familiarity substitutes for diligence, and most people are willing to accept a bad price to avoid more clicks. Trillions of dollars of enterprise value depended on those constraints persisting.

We had overestimated the value of “human relationships”. Turns out that a lot of what people called relationships was simply friction with a friendly face.

This shit should be shouted from the fucking rooftops even without AI in the picture. Our entire economy is a house of cards built on rent-extracting through introduction of pain points that may not have previously existed. Creating a problem and selling a solution.

It's honestly laughable because it means on some level the investors reading this are absolutely aware that this is what they do and they are fucking fine with it. They think making things harder and extracting money from people for it is a good thing. Fucking ghouls.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Doordash isn't rent extraction though, and is a system that benefits from a singular platform. That doesn't mean Doordash is the best implementation of that service, but the example isn't good.

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Doordash absolutely is rent seeking, though. Restaurant operators are paying the rent—for being furnished with SaaS services that used to just entail calling the restaurant and placing a takeout/delivery order. Nevermind the SaaS platforms restaurants have to pay for in order to integrate their SCM software with the ordering apps.

We used to call to order a pizza. Now, both the restaurant and we—the consumers—pay various abstracted-away "fees" to have a middle man do the same fucking thing.

The restaurant doesn't "own" the software, and it doesn't "own" the data produced by its day-to-day operations. They pay to have third parties warehouse and manage their sales data for them, and sometimes even sell that data back to them for additional fees.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Delivering food has a cost and is a service. Before things like doordash you could only get delivery from select locations, by creating a network of drivers you can now get delivery from most restaurants.

Does doordash exploit people and restaurants, yes. However, providing a delivery service is not rent seeking there is something being offered.

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

What fucking stupid, late stage capitalist, Pollyanna codswallop. Wow.

DoorDash doesn't provide a delivery service. They don't pay delivery drivers to deliver, they don't provide vehicles, benefits, or even consider drivers employees. People pay DoorDash for access to use their software/platform to receive requests from customers for delivery services. DoorDash offers a series of contract plans in which a driver pays fees for various tiers of DoorDash acting as a payment processor, can opt for a per-job rate reductions to guarantee a "base job rate" (without any guarantee of jobs assigned), and are otherwise uncompensated for "non-active" time.

The exploitation comes in the form of a monopolized rentier platform. In the same way that you might pay a landlord for access to a space to rest your pretty little head at night, restaurants and drivers pay premiums for access to a digital space to market services to one another. DoorDash doesn't make anything other than software, and you can't even "buy" DoorDash's software.

Instead of creating value through the production of goods, DoorDash acts as a digital landlord that extracts surplus value (rent) from both restaurants and laborers by controlling the digital infrastructure necessary for exchange.

Just like a landlord, DoorDash owns the digital "land" (i.e. the application, algorithm, and user interface) connecting customers, merchants, and workers.By controlling this infrastructure, DoorDash acts as a tollbooth. It charges restaurants a high commission fee (ranging from 15% to 30%+) for every order. This fee is a form of monopoly rent, where DoorDash takes a portion of the restaurant's profits simply for allowing them to access customers, similar to a landlord extracting rent.

DoorDash does not cook the food or directly employ the delivery workers as staff (again, they're "contractors", which DD has lobbied heavily to ensure). The restaurant produces the value (the food), and the driver performs the labor of delivery. They are a glorified phone service, however convenient or "neato" you might think they are.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago

Right, I agree that DoorDash is a bad example, I was just pointing out that the article makes some clear points about how our economy is organized and the investor class panicked not because they realized our economy is a house of cards built on unnecessary friction, but rather that they might have that house of cards taken from them.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago

It's rent seeking from their own agents by having them take care of the depreciation on their vehicles instead of the corporation. Still not a perfect example, but it's still a type of exploitation