Adversarial interoperability is a team sport

The piece argues that because all modern computers are essentially equivalent in capability, software can be written to undo corporate "enshittification" - removing unwanted features or restoring lost ones - so users can reclaim value from devices manufacturers degrade. That theoretical remedy is constrained by legal and commercial barriers: Section 1201 of the DMCA and similar anticircumvention rules worldwide criminalize reverse‑engineering and modification, leaving companies free to brick or surveil devices while users risk civil and criminal liability for countermeasures. Recent advances in AI - so‑called "vibe‑coding" - are changing the technical landscape by automating the fiddly, error‑prone work of installing alternative firmware, cracking manufacturer locks, and even scratch‑building custom OSes to revive bricked TVs, speakers and other hardware. Examples include community repositories and locally run models that produce the specific configuration lines and bypasses hobbyists once had to discover through trial and error.

The central claim is that effective adversarial interoperability requires more than solo hobbyists; it needs the labor, capital and coordination of teams to make countermeasures reliable, usable and safe - akin to how companies like Canonical turned Linux from an ordeal into a one‑click installer. Vibe‑coded tools can perform that role, but they bring real risks: insecure code can expose users to identity theft, sextortion or physical‑security failures (e.g., a compromised garage‑opener). Those risks are defects in the replacement software, not a moral crime in users modifying hardware they own. The solution is collective effort to harden, professionalize and distribute interoperable tools so users can control their devices without accepting surveillance or perpetual vendor lock‑in.