Image ©2025 ux-qa.com

The UX of Tyranny

Continuous Payment: The End of Ownership

A central construct of societies that have evolved around democracy it is the Right to Property.

The subscription model has become the dominant monetization strategy in digital tools, replacing the traditional concept of ownership and property.

Users generally no longer expect to own software, they expect to rent access.

Even if software runs locally on a user's device, usage can require a live connection to a vendor’s server.

When payments stop, access to what you've paid for is revoked.

Was it ever your property?

This model has spread across industries to auto manufacturers, cloud-based services, DAWs, gaming consoles, and video editing software, to name a few.

The contrast between ownership based economies and access based economies, maps to deeper historical struggles between decentralized self-reliance and centralized control of resources. 

How Dark UX Repeats the Past

What is Rentier Capitalism?

In economic terms, a world where consumers pay perpetually for access to tools, services, or content they never truly own, aligns with what is called rentier capitalism.

This is defined as a system where wealth is generated through ownership and control of assets (IP, housing, platforms) that others must pay to access, not through production or innovation.

Consumers become tenants of software and hardware, forever leasing access and functionality.

In this paradigm, UX becomes a tool not for empowerment, but for extractive continuity, and ensuring the user can never exit the system without penalty.

Designing Feudal Systems

From a structural standpoint, this dynamic mirrors feudal systems.

In feudalism, peasants worked land they did not own, giving part of their yield to lords in exchange for access and protection.

In modern software and hardware distribution, users operate tools they do not own, continually paying gatekeepers (platforms, subscriptions) for access and updates.

The key parallel is dependency on centralized power, with conditional tiers of bought autonomy.

What Were Company Towns?

Another tangible parallel is the company town model of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Workers lived in housing owned by the company, bought goods at the company store, and were often paid in company scrip (see: receiving crypto from World ID).

The result was economic and social dependency on a single corporate entity, with no upward mobility, outside competition, or generational incentive of any kind.

These systems failed due to worker unrest, economic inefficiency, and a lack of agency.

Gig Work and the Digital Sharecropper

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many freed Black Americans entered into sharecropping arrangements as a means for survival.

They were allowed to farm land owned by someone else in exchange for a portion of the harvest.

The landowners provided tools, seed, and sometimes housing, but the terms were structured to keep workers in a cycle of debt and dependency.

Similarly, delivery and ride sharing platforms retain control over:

• Pricing dynamics
• Access to customers
• Earnings after platform cuts, expenses, and discounts

Drivers must supply their own car, fuel, insurance, and maintenance.

Like historical sharecroppers, gig workers invest their own labor and capital into a system they do not control, and which yields no path to ownership or advancement.

The terms ensure dependency.

Image ©2025 ux-qa.com

UX designers today are in part shaping systems of control, dependency, and economic access.

Future generations won’t inherit a world structured around the Right to Property unless it's designed on purpose.

Below are examples of platforms and products using interface design to control, restrict, or disempower users under the banner of convenience, security, or innovation.

Remote Vehicle Control and Over-the-Air Dependency

Modern vehicles receive software updates remotely, which can add, remove, or lock features without the driver’s input.

This model centralizes control and frames the car, often debated as either a liability or an asset, as a service, not a product.

I guess technically "service-as-liability" is some form of innovation.

Bricking via Firmware Enforcement

A user who modifies their system for personal, non-commercial purposes can be locked out of their hardware. These actions happen remotely, bypassing user consent or appeal.

A purchased object becomes conditionally functional.

Hardware Pairing and Repair Lockouts

Apple has a history of pairing individual components like screens and batteries to specific devices through software.

This practice limits personal ownership and third-party repair options, creating a closed hardware ecosystem by design. There is currently EU regulation on this.

Content Ownership Without Control

The Kindle ecosystem functions on a licensing model, not a purchase model. Even downloaded content can be removed or altered at any time.

Users are not given tools to archive, export, or preserve purchased books independently.

Infrastructure Tied to Account Access

Nest thermostats and smart home devices are fully dependent on access to a Google account.

If an account is closed, suspended, or otherwise becomes inaccessible, the devices become unusable or lose essential functionality.

Users cannot decouple the physical device from the online identity. This ties core home infrastructure to the status of a software login, designed for dependency.

Algorithmic Mediation of Visibility

Our feeds on any platform are governed by opaque ranking systems, which bury or promote content based on internal priorities.

Contributors have no visibility into how their work is being distributed, and no recourse if visibility drops without explanation. The interface removes agency while presenting itself as personalized.

Forced Updates and Downtime Risk

Operating systems install mandatory updates that can change user settings, remove features, or reset privacy preferences.

Updates may occur during active sessions, undermining user control in critical work environments, prioritizing system uniformity over a user-centered definition of stability.

Curated Playlists Disguised as Discovery

Spotify’s “Discover Weekly” and other personalized playlists are shaped by internal curation models that often prioritize artists under major label contracts and those who participate in platform-specific promotions.

Users cannot verify how music is selected or why certain artists are elevated.

While presented as organic discovery, the system reflects algorithmic priority and open commercial partnerships.

The listener’s role is to add to these play counts against their will, in many cases.

No Ownership of Tools or Files

Access to paid-for software and personal files can be lost if the subscription ends.

“Connect the World,” or "The Surveillance Economy"

Meta began as Facebook, selling the promise of connecting people. Today, its core business is selling data harvested from an interface that appears social to it's users, but is designed for extraction.

Opaque Biometric Surveillance

The Orb, a biometric device created by Tools for Humanity in partnership with Worldcoin and OpenAI, scans irises to generate a World ID, and distributes a cryptocurrency based on this ID.

The popular narrative is that once AI has absorbed humanity's workload, this will be how Universal Basic Income is distributed.

Access to this form of digital identity is mediated through a closed system, without visibility into how decisions are made or whether data can be deleted, sold or hacked.

And most importantly, the physical and human risks of tying biodata to cryptocurrency are obvious, and should be treated with absolute seriousness by people who have considered the risks.

UX & Future Socioeconomic Systems

The modern app economy has it's roots in economic and political systems from the past. 

The expectations we build and design now will determine the autonomy, creativity, and agency available to future generations, especially in the realm of AI and it's effects on society.