Threads, launched by Meta in 2023 as a competitor to Twitter/X, markets itself as a more “positive” text-based social media space. Despite this positioning, the platform is built on the same data-driven infrastructure as Instagram and Facebook, relying on surveillance advertising for growth. Threads has already faced criticism for political censorship, including restrictions on Palestinian content and the downranking of contentious topics to keep the platform “brand safe” for advertisers. Its emergence expands Meta’s control over digital discourse, giving the company yet another avenue to filter and shape global political conversations through algorithmic design.
Meta’s platforms are central to the spread of harmful content. Independent investigations have documented systemic failures to moderate hate speech, incitement to violence, and misinformation, including policies that disproportionately censor Palestinian voices while allowing content that fuels discrimination to remain unchecked. Recent policy changes, such as weakening fact-checking standards, have further amplified misinformation and hate speech at scale.
The company’s business model rests on surveillance-driven advertising. By harvesting and monetizing vast amounts of user data, Meta has repeatedly placed profit above privacy, with scandals from Cambridge Analytica to opaque AI systems showing little accountability for misuse or abuse.
The consequences of this model are global. In Myanmar, an Amnesty International investigation found that Meta “substantially contributed” to atrocities against the Rohingya people by allowing its platform to be used for hate speech and incitement to violence. Despite clear evidence, Meta has refused to provide remedy or reparations to affected communities. In Palestine, the company continues to silence journalists, activists, and everyday users documenting state violence, normalizing censorship while enabling occupation-supporting narratives to proliferate.
These failures are not isolated errors but structural choices embedded in Meta’s design and governance. By prioritizing profit and state relationships over human rights, Meta has become complicit in some of the most serious abuses of the digital age. Boycotting Meta disrupts one of the most powerful engines of digital harm and political manipulation.
Unlike boycotting a clothing or food brand, refusing Meta entirely can be difficult. It's platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp) are deeply woven into daily communication and social life.
A meaningful form of resistance is to limit usage: set boundaries on time spent, mute notifications, and be conscious of how these platforms are designed to capture attention and shape perception.
Reducing engagement not only protects your mental space but also cuts into Meta’s surveillance-driven advertising model.
When possible, shift to alternatives: use Signal or Telegram for messaging, Mastodon or Bluesky for social networking, and ProtonMail or other independent email providers for communication outside Meta’s ecosystem. Even small shifts make Meta’s reach less absolute and remind us that no single corporation should own the infrastructure of our digital lives.