The threats facing press freedom in Indonesia are only increasing

The decline in press freedom under President Joko Widodo’s administration and the growing concerns about President Prabowo Subianto’s approach to the media are alarming.

As Sofie Syarief’s article in Fulcrum highlights, Jokowi’s government set a troubling precedent, particularly with Ministerial Regulation 5 (MR5) and other policies that gave the state more control over what could be published online. These regulations, under the guise of content moderation, opened the door to censorship, weakening Indonesia’s democracy. The move to fine digital platforms for failing to remove “prohibited” content further undermines the press’s ability to hold power accountable. She recalled her own experience being censored:

MR5 has numerously been used to force social media sites to take down content deemed as “breaking” the law. While journalistic products are protected by the Press Law, social media posts from individuals are not. In early October 2023, for instance, X/Twitter informed the author in an email that it received a request from Kominfo to take down one of the author’s tweets. The tweet cited an article from Indonesia’s largest daily, Kompas, criticising Widodo’s alleged misuse of intelligence to spy on political parties. After the author appealed to X and protested to the ministry, the then deputy minister claimed that their report against the tweet was due to “human error”.

Prabowo’s track record does little to inspire hope for improvement. His past threats against the media, particularly during his 2019 Labor Day speech, show a worrying disregard for press freedom. If the proposed revisions to the Broadcasting Law and Police Law that she mentioned in the article are passed, the situation could worsen, empowering authorities to silence dissent under the guise of maintaining security. The potential for abuse is clear, especially with a compliant Parliament likely to rubber-stamp these changes.

Indonesia’s press and civil society must rally together to defend their freedoms. As she points out, a free press is crucial in a functioning democracy, and with the current trajectory, Indonesia risks losing that. The need for solidarity and a strategic response has never been more urgent.

Digital media repression is an emerging global trend and an imminent threat to Indonesia’s declining democracy. Indonesian media have been criticised for their overall failure to adequately function as a political watchdog, especially given the campaign to restore Widodo’s dented public image. At present, Indonesia’s civil society is far from consolidated and cannot meaningfully challenge the government. If democracy is to stand a chance under the new administration, Indonesia’s press and civil society need to stand together to strategise their fight against autocratic legalism and to hold power accountable.

Pay-to-Play Media: A Crisis for PR, Journalism, and Credibility

I’m coming into this rather late as I only just now read the post by the founder of Maverick Indonesia PR agency, Ong Hock Chuan, on what’s happening in the media and public relations space as well as his follow up.

As a former media person who also spent time among public relations professionals, I find what’s apparently happening quite concerning and is symptomatic of an existential crisis rooted in an unsustainable business practice brought on by a drastic change in the industry landscape. Unfortunately the effect of this is a clash of two intertwined and interdependent industries that used to be in a much more congenial relationship.

As a result, the once clear distinction between earned and paid media is blurring, as media companies apparently increasingly demand payment for coverage. This phenomenon, driven by declining traditional advertising revenue, poses serious challenges for PR professionals, media outlets, and the public. What was once ethically questionable is becoming commonplace, forcing PR practitioners to navigate an environment where credibility and integrity are under constant threat.

From the perspective of PR professionals, this shift threatens the core of public relations: earned media. Earned media, by its very nature, has always been a hallmark of credibility because it reflects the independent judgment of the media outlet. However, when media companies start asking for payment in exchange for coverage, that credibility crumbles. PR professionals now face a difficult choice: play into this pay-to-play system and sacrifice ethical standards, or risk losing valuable visibility for clients.

This dilemma is exacerbated by media companies’s financial struggles. As digital platforms siphon away advertising dollars and consumer attention, traditional outlets scramble for new revenue streams. Asking brands for payment in return for coverage has unfortunately become one of those strategies, reflecting an existential crisis for the media industry.

The consequences are profound and far-reaching. When media companies accept payment for editorial content, their role as impartial gatekeepers of information is compromised. Audiences today are more savvy and skeptical than ever before. They can often detect paid content, and once trust is broken, it’s difficult to repair. For media outlets, short-term financial gains come at the cost of long-term credibility and relevance.

For PR practitioners, the erosion of earned media puts the entire profession at risk of losing its ethical foundation. The job has always been to present clients strategically without crossing into paid promotions. When media companies demand payment for coverage, PR professionals are backed into a corner: abandon ethical guidelines or stand firm on principles, potentially losing valuable placements.

This practice raises significant questions about journalistic integrity. If coverage is determined by who can pay, what does that mean for the future of news? Will underfunded yet important initiatives be left out of the media narrative? Will the media’s watchdog function be diluted if reporting can be bought?

At the core of this issue is a crisis of trust. Both PR and journalism are built on credibility, now undermined by financial desperation. PR practitioners must secure coverage without compromising ethical standards, while media companies must remain financially viable without sacrificing journalistic integrity. The question isn’t just about funding sources, but whether audiences will continue to trust either the media or the brands paying for placement.

This trend is dangerous for all involved. Media companies may find short-term relief in paid content but will lose audience trust. PR professionals may secure more coverage by paying, but risk their own credibility and that of their clients. Most importantly, the public loses when news becomes a commodity rather than a public service.

This crisis demands a reevaluation of priorities. Media companies must innovate to find sustainable revenue models that don’t compromise their core mission. Perhaps media companies need a complete overhaul in how they are structured and how they approach the business. 

PR professionals must reaffirm their commitment to ethical practices, even in the face of pressure to secure coverage at any cost. Both industries must recognize that their value proposition lies not in short-term gains, but in maintaining the trust and respect of their audiences and clients.

Public relations and media companies are not adversaries and they should never be. The challenge is finding a mutually sustainable and beneficial business model in the face of an advertising revenue drain by global tech platforms. The same platforms that are increasingly abandoning their need of media companies as content producers because the audience have been conditioned to read only what’s published on the platforms.

Ultimately, demanding payment for media coverage is a symptom of deeper problems. Left unchecked, it will erode the foundations of both professions creating a world where all media coverage is suspect and public relations is synonymous with paid advertising.

Post Pandemic Layoffs

Business Insider published an article earlier this week about how difficult it’s been for so many people to find work after the massive layoffs that happened since 2022. It’s paywalled so you’ll need a subscription but I’ll post some excerpts.

One reason it’s become harder is that even though layoffs remain tepid and the unemployment rate is low, the number of job openings in the US has fallen back to levels not seen since early 2021.

“If you’re looking to find a job right now, it’s much tougher than it was two years ago,” Nick Bunker, the director of North American economic research at Indeed, told BI.

Sometimes companies post job vacancies but don’t really mean to hire people because they don’t have the budget or can’t allocate headcounts. So why the hell are they posting them?

“We’re in a market right now that’s very cautious and conservative,” he said. “That company may have a need, and they’re posting to see what they can get, but they maybe don’t have the budget or the final approval to actually hire that person until maybe next year.”

That’s Jason Henninger, managing director at Heller Search, a recruiting firm focused on the tech industry. Basically some companies are looking to see what talents are available and try to figure out what sort of hiring strategies they can come up with given their own constraints.

I posted the following on Mastodon a couple of days ago,

Getting a new job in this economy is tough. There are people who have been unemployed for more than a year, sometimes longer than two, who can’t make their way back to regular employment anymore regardless of the additional training or certifications that they took because of job cuts and redundancies.

During the pandemic companies overhired and created new divisions and goals that no longer exist anymore because, “hey, we’re back to normal now!” And so many companies refuse to take the lessons of the pandemic while workers were counting on them.

The disconnect is real and maybe the only remedy is industry swap. Go into a whole new different thing. That’s what I’m having to do. I can’t do journalism or professional blogging anymore.

The main point there is the disconnect between corporate behavior and workers’s expectations. The old corpo heads are pushing to a full return to pre-pandemic work environment but workers have had a taste of freedom of choice and being able to work according to their needs. Unfortunately while it seemed like it was a worker’s market during the pandemic because they were in high demand, it quickly reversed once the pandemic was ending and companies started shedding those hires.

What’s more nefarious is the way they let go of their workers. This infamous one from end of 2021 was especially cruel. Better.com CEO called a meeting with 900 employees over Zoom and everyone on that call got told they were fired effective immediately. Any sense of empathy that the CEO might have communicated was immediately extinguished with the way he told everyone in the call that they were suddenly unemployed.

“This isn’t news that you’re going to want to hear but ultimately it was my decision and I wanted you to hear it from me. It’s been a really, really challenging decision to make. This is the second time in my career that I’m doing this and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it I cried. This time I hope to be stronger. But we are laying off about 15% of the company for [a number of] reasons: the market, efficiency and performances and productivity.

“If you’re on this call you are part of the unlucky group that is being laid off. Your employment here is terminated. Effective immediately.”

Consciously or not he made it all about him and how difficult it was for him to do it but letting employees go is never about the leader or how they feel, nobody gives a shit about management and especially not about the CEO. It’s about the employees and how it affects them.

The only thing that might make retrenched employees feel better would be the severance package and how they’re treated post employment. Some companies let former employees keep their insurance for a period of time, sometimes office facilities and amenities are still available in some capacity to help give them a softer landing. How the layoff is conveyed is important but post employment rights are far more meaningful.

The Collapse of Chinese EV Startups is a Wake-Up Call for the Industry

Rest of World published a compelling piece on the collapse of several Chinese EV startups, and there’s a glaring lesson for the entire industry: Car startups shouldn’t be developing their own software. They should rely on established software companies to build, license, and deploy that software.

Think about it: You shell out tens of thousands, maybe more, for a car—an investment you expect to last for a decade or longer. And for EVs, the software isn’t just a dashboard convenience, it’s central to the entire driving experience. From battery management to over-the-air updates and self-driving features, software makes or breaks the car.

Now, let’s imagine you buy a shiny new EV from a flashy startup. Three years later, that startup folds. What happens to your software updates? What happens to the core functionality of your vehicle if the startup disappears? Spoiler: you’re screwed. 

When an EV company collapses, it’s not just a question of no more updates or no more customer support. It’s much worse. Your vehicle could be left with outdated software that becomes incompatible with new systems, or worse, it could stop functioning altogether. This is especially true when startups decide to build their own custom software ecosystems from the ground up. It sounds like a smart idea to stand out in a crowded market, but it’s more like building a sandcastle next to the ocean—it’s not going to last, and it’s the customers who end up with sand on their shoes.

Take Byton, for example. They were around for four years, from 2017 to 2021, with big dreams of luxury electric SUVs featuring fancy tech. It was a Tencent – Foxconn joint venture, but all their resources couldn’t save them from the software pit they dug themselves into. They poured talent, effort, and money into creating a massive dashboard screen with a custom UI, promising AI-driven features. And where did it get them? Bankruptcy.

Or consider Bordrin Motors, another four-year wonder from 2016 to 2020. They developed their own vehicle operating system and digital cockpit platform. Sounds cool, right? Well, it would be if they hadn’t run out of money trying to maintain it all.

Established software companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have been making software for decades. They know what it takes to keep an ecosystem alive, stable, and, more importantly, secure. The idea of rolling your own software is not new—remember when every gadget maker wanted to make their own OS? It was a disaster then, and it’s a disaster now. Why should carmakers fare any better?

Instead, EV startups should focus on what they’re supposed to be good at: building great electric cars. Let the software experts handle the software. Tesla, for all its faults, is still in the game partly because of its strong software focus. They’ve managed to build a robust platform that, so far, has stood the test of time. But here’s the catch: not every startup can be Tesla, nor should they try to be. 

Some Chinese EV companies are getting it right. Look at Xpeng Motors and Li Auto. These guys are smart. They’re doing a mix of in-house development and licensing from established tech providers. Xpeng partnered with NVIDIA for AI computing and works with Desay SV Automotive for some software components. Li Auto isn’t too proud to license components for specific functionalities. And guess what? They’re still in business!

Licensing software from a more established player means that even if your car startup fails, your customers aren’t stuck with an expensive, bricked paperweight in their driveway. Their car can still receive updates, still work, and they aren’t left holding the bag. It’s akin to separating hardware from software in the tech world: Apple doesn’t build its processors, TSMC does. Apple doesn’t make its screens; Samsung does. Division of labor works for a reason.

Apple is an example of a tech company that wants to do the whole widget and they mostly do these days, but still not everything. They design their hardware but they don’t build them. The manufacturing and assembly go to partners like Foxconn and Pegatron. They didn’t design their own processors until they have the resources to put together the teams for it. And in their early days they didn’t even design their own products. Apple hired frogdesign (now just Frog) to design their computers and come up with a design language to be followed by the company’s lines of products so they all have the same style.

The problem is that too many startups have founders who think they can do it all. They want to control every aspect of the experience, which is admirable until reality sets in. Building a car is hard enough. Making great software is equally hard. Trying to do both? It’s a fool’s errand. And who pays the price for that arrogance? The consumers.

It’s one thing to purchase a phone or computer and no longer receiving updates or support after 3-4 years but when it’s a car that costs tens of thousands of dollars, you damn sure want to be able to use it for more than just a few years or at least sell it at a decent price when you need to.

No startup founder builds their company expecting to fail, so of course they will spend resources to do everything. However, when a company is just starting up the leaders need to be able to determine what their areas of strengths are, what sort of resources can they pull, and what factors can or should be outsourced to leverage outside expertise and increase internal efficiency. Once a company is strong enough to maintain a solid core and grow a business from there, then they can begin to consider building or developing non core elements internally. Of course, they also need to be able to identify what their actual core strengths are, lest they focus on the wrong things and end up accelerating their own collapse.

The key takeaway here is simple: EV startups need to know their limits. No matter how much venture capital you have or how many big names are on your board, you’re not a software company just because you hire a few software engineers. You’re a car company, so act like one. Leave the software to those who know it best. Because in the end, if you go under, it’s the customers who will feel the real crash.

Exploited, Extorted, and Erased: Indonesia’s Struggle Against Dutch Historical Revision

I’ve never considered myself a nationalist, but there’s one thing that has been tugging at me for decades: the Dutch colonial legacy in Indonesia. It’s a complex history that continues to resonate and remains unresolved to this day.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room – the price of Indonesian independence. In the 1950s, Indonesia had to pay billions of guilders to the Netherlands just to secure full sovereignty, about 4.5 billion. It’s a staggering sum that apparently had a far greater impact on the Dutch economy than the much-lauded Marshall Plan. Yet, when the Dutch discuss their post-war recovery, it’s all about that American aid. The audacity to erase the role of Indonesia in the post World War II reconstruction and redevelopment of the Netherlands.

As if you’re not aware, here’s a bitter pill to swallow: part of that independence payment went towards covering the cost of weapons the Dutch used against Indonesians during the struggle for freedom. A member of the Indonesian delegation at the Round Table Conference in 1949 escaped death in Jogjakarta by a Dutch bomb that went through a window he was standing by. It’s a cruel twist that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

From the article linked above:

The Dutch delegation firmly started negotiations with the requirement that the entire Dutch Indian debt of 6.5 billion guilders should be transferred to Indonesia, including the cost of all recent military actions that had estimated to have killed a hundred thousand Indonesians. The original draft law states that the ‘measures taken to restore order and peace (…) were (were) in the interest of Indonesia’.


It must have been a strange sensation for the Indonesian delegation members. Mohammed Hatta was still imprisoned during the so-called ‘Second Police Action’ in 1948 and Dr. Leimena, one of the Republican delegation members, had seen a Dutch bomb arrive through the window during the same action in Yogyakarta and managed to jump into a space under the stairs just in time. Now they were presented with the bill of that Dutch bomb.

And let’s not forget the ongoing dispute over our Independence Day. The Dutch government stubbornly refuses to legally recognize August 17, 1945, insisting instead on December 1949 after the conclusion of the Round Table Conference at The Hague. It’s as if our declaration and struggle meant nothing until they decided to acknowledge it, a power that the colonists insists on maintaining because they can’t bear to witness their former slaves achieving full independence.

But here’s the crux of the matter: the Netherlands’ current prosperity is built on a foundation of colonial exploitation. For over three centuries, they extracted wealth from the Indonesian archipelago, shaping their nation’s trajectory at our expense. This historical debt remains largely unacknowledged and unaddressed.

Last year’s “acknowledgment” of the Independence Day by the Dutch government? It’s a step that carries no legal weight and falls short of true reconciliation. The Dutch government even stated that it has no legal relevance and it does not change the date for the United Nations. It’s high time for the Netherlands to face a reckoning with history.

Too many people aren’t aware of this situation between the Netherlands and Indonesia. I’m not satisfied until there is a full recognition, a genuine acknowledgment of the past and its lasting impacts and a full reparation paid by the Netherlands to Indonesia even if it means collapsing their economy because that’s what the Dutch deserve. They don’t deserve a single thing that they enjoy today because everything they have was built upon the exploitation of an entire archipelago wider than the width of the continental United States. Until that happens, this chapter of our shared history remains painfully unresolved.

Why is it important that the Netherlands, the United Nations, and any other country and organization recognize this date? The official recognition of 17 August 1945 is an important milestone as part of the decolonization process to acknowledge the loss of power and authority of the Netherlands over the former colony. 

This refusal is the same as if the UK refuse to acknowledge July 4, 1776 as the American Independence Day because the revolutionary war was still happening until 1783, and will only recognize September 3, 1783 because that’s the date of the Treaty of Paris. Indonesia was still at war with the Netherlands until 1949 but we declared our independence in 1945. Tell me how that’s a different case.

It’s important that former colonists fully detach themselves of all their power and authority to disabuse the notion that they still have some level of control over the status of the independent nation.

So while I may not wave flags or lead protests, this is an issue that strikes a very deep chord. It’s not just about the past; it’s about respect, justice, and setting the historical record straight. And that is something worth speaking up for.

Further reading

Forced atonement? Dutch apologies and compensation for colonial era rights violations – Indonesia at Melbourne

Dutch government apologises to Indonesia for war abuses, but knowledge of atrocities is nothing new

How the Netherlands systematically used extreme violence in Indonesia and concealed this afterwards – Leiden University

Archipelago of Death: The Brutality of Japanese and Dutch Counterinsurgency Operations in Indonesia

Uproar about De Oost: ‘Westerling is a war criminal, that is my truth’

Late night talk shows could be in danger, Jimmy Kimmel says

The entertainment landscape has changed so much since 20 years ago there’s no guarantee we’ll even have regularly scheduled programming anymore on TV, let alone late night talk shows in 10-20 years.

Shifting behavior means people watch clips or recordings of talk shows online instead and unlikely to watch the original broadcasts, taking away the value of advertising on live shows. If they want these shows to stick around there has to be a new business model to justify their production.

Streaming companies have been experimenting with hosting traditional TV content such as reality TV, talk shows, and current affairs, but the success of these types of shows are far and few in between. The context in which these types were made popular no longer exist with non linear entertainment.

The era of conventional TV programming is coming to an end and it’s going to be very challenging for many to deal with.

Variety:

“It used to be Johnny Carson was the only thing on at 11:30 p.m. and so everybody watched and then David Letterman was on after Johnny so people watched those two shows, but now they’re so many options.”

Not only are there so many options, but Kimmel argued that streaming platforms like YouTube and social media channels that break up late-night episodes into clips to watch after the episode airs has also limited the urgency of tuning in live.

“Maybe more significantly, the fact that people are easily able to watch your monologue online the next day, it really cancels out the need to watch it when it’s on the air,” he said. “Once people stop watching it when it’s on the air, networks are going to stop paying for it to be made.”

What Star Wars means as a space fantasy

One thing that always bothered me about Star Wars after reading the Dark Horse comics all those years ago was how technology seemed to develop in an incredibly glacial pace even after thousands of years.

It forced me to eventually reconcile that Star Wars is not science fiction and cannot be science fiction but a high tech fantasy or space opera story set in space where technology plays a significant part in society but the people are not too concerned with its advancement.

In the same spirit, a story that takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away where anti gravity machines are common, telekinetic powers are commonplace, floating sky cities exist, interstellar ships can travel great distances as if they’re regular buses or planes, and invisible elements of nature can be used to affect physical reality and corporeal objects should not be held to the same laws of physics that shape our reality.

Once you can accept that it’s a story about space wizards with flashlights that can cut metal, and let go of the notion that the story should follows rules that govern our reality, it’s a lot easier to be immersed and enjoy what’s being presented to us.

Doesn’t mean the story can be without flaws, though. It wouldn’t be Star Wars without cringe dialogs and bad story telling with plot holes that get patched on the fly that’s been a fixture since 1977.

Turning a dead iMac G4 into an M1 Mac

Noted gadget repairer Hugh Jeffreys came into three disused (and abused) iMac G4 and went to work to restore one of them by using a display from an Intel MacBook Pro and a newly purchased M1 Mac mini.

Most people would just buy the Mac mini and grab an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse and they’ll end up with a perfectly fine desktop computer but obviously Jeffreys is no ordinary consumer.

He went to work by replacing the dead 17″ screen with one from an old 17″ Intel Core MacBook Pro with an anti glare or matte display (you can tell from the metal or silver bezel around the screen instead of a black one) circa 2009-2012. He then cannibalized the M1 Mac mini and rearranged the components to fit inside the iMac’s dome base.

It took him about 9 hours to complete the Frankensteined iMac which now identifies itself as an M1 Mac mini. Definitely not for the faint hearted and requires expert hands, resources, and patience.

The iPhone is obviously more than a phone

It’s a handheld mobile platform that does so much more than make phone calls after all, so using the phone aspect as the primary designation of the device when it’s probably among the least used function seems like a misnomer.

The moniker was probably the easiest one to go with back in the day. Apple wanted to distinguish the device from the iPod, which was still a strong seller in 2007, and people associated cellular devices with nothing else other than phones, at least back then, so it made sense to call it the iPhone even when it’s “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator.”

It’s easy to see why Louie Mantia thinks the iPhone name is not a good fit but after 17 years the name has cemented itself as one of the strongest brands that has ever existed. The iPod seems like a more logical name for a multipurpose device and might have been great had Apple not felt the need to introduce the iPhone brand but I think that ship has sailed. The iPhone name has taken just as strong of a hold and recognition as the iPod in roughly the same amount of time, bland as it may be.

In four years the iPhone will be as old as the iPod was when it was retired in 2022. The iPod as a product category lasted 21 years. It doesn’t seem like Apple is a company that would make such a change after all these years and we don’t even know if the iPhone as a product category will still exist five years from now (probably will).

Might Apple resurrect the iPod name? Who knows, they resurrected the iBook name once (and retired it again in favor of Apple Books) but they no longer follow the i- convention of naming products so chances of that happening is probably pretty slim.

The iPod was a great name and its legacy lives on in podcast and AirPods and if the rumors of a touchscreen AirPods case ever come true, I’ve a feeling they’ll still be called AirPods.

Canva’s templates are taking over the world one flyer at a time

Love the post by Joan Westenberg here addressing a concern that many hold over the widespread use of templates, specifically Canva’s templates.

As design becomes far more accessible than ever, millions of people with little design skills or lacking access to professional designers, guided by their sense of aesthetics, are able to churn pleasing or professional-looking designs for their needs.

At the same time, the reliance on popular templates is beginning to resemble what’s happening to cafes around the world that sport similar aesthetics to attract customers who want to share photos to Instagram, or homes that resemble IKEA showrooms.

She wrote:

But while Canva has unlocked design for the masses, an unintended consequence has been the dulling of creativity into a uniform “Canva aesthetic.” Because the app makes it so easy to create competent designs, much of its 55 million-strong user base simply relies on the platform’s most popular templates and elements. The result is a visual sameness wherever Canva designs show up, as if the world has been blanketed by an army of aspiring graphic designers who all graduated from the same school.

You can’t blame individuals for taking the path of least resistance. Creating a Canva design takes minutes and requires no skill. It’s fast, cheap and gets the job done for cash-strapped small businesses, students, nonprofits and others who can’t afford a professional designer. An original design carefully crafted from scratch is always going to look better. But why go to the effort when Canva lets you churn out something nearly as good that’s based on best practices?

For Canva’s millions of happy users, that’s clearly a worthwhile tradeoff. The question is whether it’s good for design and creativity writ large. Like the McDonald’s-ization of cuisine or the Ikea-fication of home decor, Canva’s templated approach is pushing visual communication towards a more accessible, but ever more generic mean.

If it sounds like it’s bad, it depends on your perspective. With so many people sporting similar, identifiable visual design, our world may end up looking aesthetically bland and generic but as with design trends over time, that is not a new thing, not by a country mile.

At one point, buildings resembled the Roman architecture with prominent columns and symmetrical forms. Then there was a gothic period in the 19th century before Art Deco became the rage in the early 20th century. We also had a modernism movement with bold, flat, minimalistic designs with steel and glass for much of the 20th century that in many parts remain in fashion today.

On the digital side, we had to endure the terrible period of PowerPoint templates and bullet points jammed on our faces for a while before Garr Reynolds began advocating for what he calls Presentation Zen and Mac users started to rebel and adopted Apple’s design sensibilities through Keynote. Today, perhaps ironically, corporate decks are beginning to adopt the Apple product summary style thanks to Figma templates.

And I haven’t even talked about the dynamic visual design trends of the 80s and 90s. Or how generic looking homes have always been a thing to the point where you can often tell from what period or decade it came from.

Like Joan said, you can’t blame people for taking the path of least resistance. At least more things look nicer today (from our current aesthetics sense) thanks to Canva templates.