The Most Radical Thing You Can Do On Meta Is Leave

Written by Lloyd Lewis

There is a particular kind of campaign you've seen. Maybe you've run one. A carousel post, well-designed, indignant in the right places, about surveillance capitalism. About data harvesting. About what the machine does with your face, your habits, your grief. Maybe it's anti-AI. Maybe it's a manifesto against the very logic of extraction.

And it's on Instagram.

Sit with that for a second, because almost nobody does. The critique of the surveillance apparatus, delivered through the surveillance apparatus, monetised by the surveillance apparatus, its reach throttled or amplified at the discretion of the surveillance apparatus, every engagement with it, every angry share, every solidarity heart, feeding the exact training pipelines and ad-targeting models the post claims to oppose.

This is not hypocrisy. I want to be precise, because "hypocrite" is lazy and it lets everyone off the hook. It's something stranger and more total than hypocrisy. It's a closed loop. The dissent is an input. The platform does not need to suppress the critique. It can let it run all day, because the critique is product. Your outrage has a CPM.

Let's do the actual maths

People talk about reach as if it were money. It isn't, and the gap is obscene.

Direct payment from Meta for views — the Reels revenue share — runs at roughly $0.01 to $0.05 per thousand views. That's the real number. A reel that does 10,000 views pays you somewhere between a penny and fifty cents. The revenue split, when you qualify at all, is 55% to you, 45% to Meta, and most of the program is invite-only and quietly throttled regardless. The much-quoted "$1,000 to $1,500 per million views" figure requires a million views, US-weighted audience, and a following the overwhelming majority of accounts will never have.

So picture the account you described. Ten thousand-plus likes a post. Real reach, real engagement, the kind of numbers that look like a business. Run it through the platform's own payout and that account is earning the price of a coffee directly. The reach is not income. The reach is the raw material Meta sells to someone else. The creator is not the merchant. The creator is the inventory.

The money, when it exists, comes from outside the platform — brand deals, affiliates, your own products. Which means the platform is a billboard you rent with your labour, in a currency (attention, behavioural data) it keeps even when you're paid nothing. Half a million followers is not half a million pounds. Half a million followers is a number Meta can switch off on a Tuesday.

The person whose income fell off a cliff

You'll have seen the story, or one like it. A creator pulling in thousands a month, real money, builds their whole livelihood on a platform and then the algorithm changes and the same work, the same audience, the same half-million followers, now pays in the hundreds. Their conclusion was exact: half a million followers now means nothing.

They were right, and the timing isn't mysterious. Through 2025 into 2026, Instagram re-weighted its ranking toward watch time and "sends per reach," and announced it would favour what it called raw, real human content. Aggregator and repost-heavy accounts saw reach collapse by 60 to 80 percent. Overnight. No warning, no appeal, no severance. A following built over years is not an asset you own. It is a permission the landlord can revoke, and did.

That's the part the "you have to be where the people are" crowd never costs in. You don't have a relationship with your audience on Meta. You have a relationship with a ranking model that stands between you and your audience and charges rent on every glance, and the rent, and the rules, and your entire income, can be rewritten by people you'll never meet, to serve a quarterly number you'll never see.

Why the angriest accounts make the most

Here's the uncomfortable bit, and it's the one that should matter most to anyone who calls themselves an activist.

The accounts that do make serious money on these platforms are, overwhelmingly, the polarising ones. This isn't cynicism; it's the documented mechanism. Engagement-based ranking rewards strong emotional reaction, and the strongest, most reliable, most contagious reaction is anger. Yale researchers found platforms literally train users to express more moral outrage over time, because outrage is what gets rewarded. The Knight Foundation found posts framed as moral combat pull 63 percent more engagement than informational ones. "Rage bait" was Oxford's Word of the Year for 2025, usage tripled in twelve months, and one British creator was estimated to have earned around £3.5 million in 2024 from rage-baiting alone, with projections near £9.5 million for the following year.

Read that figure again, then look back at your penny-per-thousand-views. The platform is not neutral terrain on which good arguments and bad arguments compete. It is a machine that pays, structurally and enormously, for division, and pays almost nothing for everything else. The activist who posts careful, true, calmly furious work into this system is not fighting it. They are providing it with the low-CPM filler between the rage-farmers it actually rewards. Their sincerity subsidises the spectacle.

And note what kind of activism the machine loves. Not the kind that changes the rules, the kind that performs the conflict, recurring villains, cliffhanger feuds, scripted like a soap. Outrage that resolves nothing and recurs forever is the perfect product, because a problem solved stops generating engagement. The platform's ideal activist never wins.

"But reach"

I know the objection because it's the only one. You have to be where the people are. Refusing to participate is a purity position, a luxury, talking only to the converted.

It's a real argument and I won't insult it. But notice what it concedes. It concedes that the terms are set, permanently, by the thing being criticised; that the only venue for opposing the machine is inside the machine, in its format, at its reach, paid in its pennies, monetised first and hardest by it. It concedes there is no outside. And if there's genuinely no outside, the critique was never going to do anything anyway. You're not organising resistance. You're decorating the inside of the cell and calling the mural a protest.

The "reach" argument is how the platform keeps its critics. Not by silencing them, by convincing them that leaving is the same as losing.

The actual radical act

The most secure, most radical, most genuinely oppositional thing you can do on a Meta platform is not use it. Or, if you have any reach at all, to use that reach exactly once… to say don't use it. Cover that cell in your own shit. A dirty protest inside the cell.

Not because abstention is morally pure. It isn't, and purity is boring. Because abstention is the only move in the entire game the platform cannot convert into value. It cannot serve an ad against an account that doesn't fit or exist. It cannot train on the post you didn't make. It cannot sell the attention you withheld, or charge rent on a glance that never happened. Every other form of resistance is legible to it as engagement, your approval, your outrage, your beautifully argued opposition, all monetisable, all fine. Departure is the one thing it has no word for.

Surveillance capitalism has a single requirement: that you stay. The model does not care what you think about it. It cares that you're here to be measured thinking it.

What we actually do instead

So this isn't a counsel of despair, and it isn't withdrawal from the fight. We're activists. We just refuse to be paid activists in the platform's sense; refuse to become content categories, refuse to let our anger become someone's CPM.

The strategy is graffiti and stickering our own shit. Hit-and-run, not occupation. You go in, you leave the mark, you go. A comment on a big account. A line that doesn't ask for engagement and can't be ranked because you're not staying to be ranked. The work itself lives somewhere you own, a domain, a site, a list of people who chose to be reached by you directly rather than assigned to you by a model. That's the building. The platform is just a wall you tag on the way past.

It's slower. It's smaller, at first. It will never give you the dopamine of a number going up, and it will certainly never make you the rage-baiter's £3.5 million, because it is built precisely not to do the thing that earns that. That's not the failure of the strategy. That's the strategy working.

The note I left

I left a comment on a large account today. A good account, sincere work, critiquing exactly the right things. It said roughly:

Surely the most secure and radical thing you can do on a Meta platform is to either not use it…or just say: don't use it?

I don't expect a reply. The architecture doesn't really permit one. But I'll say here what a comment box can't hold:

The call is coming from inside the house. It always was. The only message that gets out clean is the one that ends with the line going dead.

artoffaceless.com — Est. 2010. No Meta account required.

Awen Null: books, biography, latest update

Follow Awen Null and explore their bibliography from Amazon’s Awen Null Author Page.

Amazon.co.ukRead full bio

myfacebelongsto.me

Join the Movement: Learn more about our MyFaceBelongsTo.Me protocol and how to protect your digital sovereignty.

Learn more