Three prevalent themes in the discussion
1. Meta’s ad ban: genuine compliance vs. malicious compliance
Many commenters argue whether Meta’s broad prohibition on political/social‑issue ads stems from EU regulation or is a strategic move to avoid stricter rules and shift blame to regulators.
- “This actually is a result of Meta being forced to obey EU law… Regulation (EU) 2024/900 greatly restricts political advertising … so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.” – mminer237
- “The regulation is about transparency and restricting targeted advertising technics … it is meta doing something on their own.” – dgellow
- “Meta enforces a broad ban because they don't want EU to regulate them, so they drag their feet and create the most possible 'unwanted collateral damage' …” – darkwater
- “Call it malicious compliance if one wishes… Meta does not do anything (besides try and make money) without being forced to.” – tygon
- “appears to be a response to EU regulation in 2025 banning political/electoral/social issue advertising … they just decided to refuse to run ads for anything potentially politically or socially ‘sensitive’.” – petcat
2. Effectiveness of individual boycotts vs. collective political action
A recurring debate centers on whether simply stopping use of Meta’s products can curb its power, or whether organized political/regulatory effort is necessary.
- “Well you can also just stop using these products… Folks want Facebook … to be regulated into some perfect idea they have in their heads… If Facebook allows this content, they break EU laws, or they have to allow some content you disagree with and now you're mad.” – ericmay
- “There is a particular amount of economic privilege in this statement … a large number of people are required to use those services for their job … Individual boycotts rarely work … Political action has a much higher likelihood of success when driven by smaller motivated groups.” – pixl97
- “I don't have any of those but I do need one messenger to communicate with my buddies in the EU … Telegram is my poison.” – TacticalCoder
- ““We” do, we could, if organized. Per your first point, that is the problem today - agreeing on a shared goal rather than infighting about all the peripheral issues.” – willy_k
- “People who say this have never tried, do nothing themselves to contribute to improving the problem … besides perhaps complaining on the internet in a bubble of likeminded people.” – colechristensen
3. Who holds power? The rhetoric of “we” and collective agency
Many remarks focus on the ambiguity of the pronoun “we,” the privilege behind claims of collective power, and whether ordinary people can really effect change.
- “At this point, I suspect that comments like this one are part of an astroturfing campaign by the ruling class… “We” don’t have any power… direct your anger where it belongs.” – p-e-w
- “The power is with the people. It only takes about 1/4th of a community enact massive change. Your take is exactly what keeps people apathetic and reliant on others.” – chneu
- “the giant delusion that sustains this whole shitty thing is the public's disenchantment with politics … almost nobody is coordinating to pull it.” – ajkjk
- ‘‘We’’ is a massive group of people who all have wildly different ideas. Saying 'laws could be what we want them to be' is highly subjective depending on who the 'we' is.” – alt227
- “people use We as the royal we quite often … it works much better when you have lots and lots of money.” – pixl97