Technically it doesn’t, unless we start clawing back rights, and is going to be difficult.
In the software front, we need to stop purchasing SAAS (Software as a Service), and enforce the user right to purchase permanent licenses at a reasonable - read: equivalent, not overinflated so nobody buys it- price.
This is a difficult proposition because how costs are computed in companies. Monthly expenses are computed differently that lump payments, in favor of the former; that’s why they usually rent and not buy equipment like cars and computers - and for at least the last decade… people.
So companies want to buy SAAS. And for some users it also makes sense to only pay for the month they are using the product… But the problem with SAAS is that the moment you stop owning the product, you stop being able to influence the development of it.
If you buy version to version, and the new version’s improvements are not worth the price of upgrading, you won’t buy it, and keep using the old version. With SAAS, you’re getting the improvements, even if they are not improvements, and the only alternative is to stop using the software at all which sometimes is an option (see Blender success story) but normally is not (I’m an open source adopter and defender, but LibreOffice, Gimp and FreeCAD are not and won’t be a for a long time a good replacement for Office, Photoshop and Fusion at professional level).
So companies who are stuck in incremental version payments usually are motivated to make good improvements. Companies who are embedded in SAAS cycles are not, and are free to enshittify.
Another point in a complete different direction is to limit the power of investors in companies. Most companies are, in effect, torn upon satisfying the customers (and not shafting their employees) and satisfying the insatiable hunger of their investors. And usually end up doing whatever the latter demands, specially once the board of directors is replaced with a “not much experience with the sector but a lot of experiency extracting value” CEO, which will proceed to fire half of the employees, and enshittify the product.
I always fear the moment a small company I followed announces they successfully completed a round of funding, because usually this funding comes with extra obligations that basically will suck the life of that company and will make it a bit worse.
I’m no economist so I have no idea how we could curb the power of investors in a way they are still entused to give money (for me the obvious solution is to guillotine the investors, give the money to the state, and use that money to fund public services and grants with fewer obligations to smaller companies, but probably I’m going to be called crazy and unamerican for saying something like this so…) but I’m sure someone smarter than me will figure it out.