Although I haven’t specifically used Facebook since I detached from that scrollslop-sodden mess, I still kept it around as another site to syndicate my blog posts. Occasionally dropping in to check up on friends, but otherwise resigning it to the dregs of enshittification.

Then, a few days back, I was denied access to the site due to Meta’s interpretation of UK Law. As part of increased governmental crackdown on SocMed’s influence over here, users can now choose to pay a monthly subscription. One to avoid having their personal data harvested and sent to advertisers and not an immediately terrible idea – in theory. However, the option was presented in a most user-hostile form of malicious compliance.

UK users logging into Facebook this week were presented with a forced interstitial screen, demanding they choose between this new option or keep things apparently just as they were. Slowly, and then all at once, my remaining trust was effectively squandered.

Business as usual should not require the user to confirm it as such – especially when adding a new option. Denying access to the site until the choice is made only adds greater weight to perceived wrongdoing. The red flags have risen.

Meta has historically pushed too far too often, and denying access is leverage against the user. Although the “current experience” claims to keep things as they were, there is an implication that users who choose this may inadvertently authorise further data-harvesting beyond expectations. It simply doesn’t sit right with me.

My suspicions may seem a small barely-warranted grievance, but they come after a sustained succession of other small grievances. Thankfully a third option – to delete or disable one’s account – was still available without further compliance. I was also able to kick off a full data export, although I doubt I’ll see it anytime soon. This post shall constrain the only ‘drama’ of departure.

Instagram remains usable under these terms for now, as the interstitial there can be skipped by reloading the app or manually mangling the URL. I don’t believe this will be an option for long, and fully expect to be closing that down as well. WhatsApp so far has not succumbed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that goes the same way – especially given recent rumours that end-to-end encryption is still snoopable.

These anti-user blocks follow a similar pattern that’s emerged over here, where sites that have been used without issue for many years suddenly require personal identification to access. Often in the form of video authentication or demanding access to government ID to prove the user is “of age”. Beyond smut, these restrictions have nigh-immediately been weaponized to restrict access way beyond their remit, including basic account management, with personal details and documentation farmed off to barely-vetted third parties who have already proved their lax security.

In the name of safety, online existence isn’t as “safe” as it used to be.

In the spirit of “Global Switch Day”, I prepare my presence on other services, some of which are self-hosted yet federate further. This movement takes a stand to reduce the impact of Big Tech on our digital lives and, more presently, to limit the influence of US companies across the global stage. Conveniently, it may also counter the authoritarian overreach occurring closer to home.

A change of perspective, but taking control has never been more vital.