[aaroninsf]

It's absolutely the fault of the mechanics and submission of our society to surveillance capitalism,

one which has been intentionally cultivated, exploited, and capitalized, by Meta,

so yes, it is Instagram's fault. They are the primary party—though I do not excuse those complicit with surveillance capitalism, meaning every person who continues despite unending evidence for how sociopathic and destructive the company, its management, and its impact is, to use their products. Which use however is also traceable in significant part back to Meta, via the ugly mechanics of exploitative and amoral engagement-engineering and their exploitation of monopoly.

This is a front upon which they might and should be confronted... a class action on behalf of those have not consented to participate in surviellance would be a lovely thing.

Under the current political shitshow, also in measurable part the "fault" of Meta, however, we can expect no such thing.

[mindslight]

You're being downvoted for making the point a bit obtusely, but the general point is spot on. This culture of broadcast sharing with some imagined singlular hivemind is an opinionated policy, and certainly not the only way of socially interacting. Many people view different groups of friends as disparate communities and don't appreciate the social context collapse of them mixing. And even if everyone is friends, more people coming to an event doesn't always make for a better time.

The one-community broadcast-everything model has been embraced and encouraged by these surveillance-based businesses who don't want you to think too hard why they are also privy to all of your communications, and also want to drive the maximum number of interactions for "engagement" metrics. Non-corporate social media, "indie" web, and group chats are much more natural organic patterns of communication.

[aaroninsf]

Lol, Meta apologists everywhere.

Rue the consequences of making working for Meta socially and career viable at leisure. Maybe in an El Salvador prison.