Is Meta still an ethical and responsible marketing option?
It’s fair to say that balancing ethics with marketing effectiveness has never been more challenging. When you’re chasing results, and client success sits at the top your list of priorities, it’s not always straightforward to choose which channels you want to work with – especially when taking ethics into consideration. For us, Meta is a marketing channel whose justification of use has been heavily up for debate in our office, and there are a lot of mixed feelings flying around.
We have a complicated relationship with Meta
It’s not news to anyone that Facebook and Instagram are among the biggest and most influential social media channels on the planet, and alongside Threads and WhatsApp, represent a suite of applications that are used by a significant proportion of the UK population. When it comes to delivering marketing for our clients that reaches the right audiences, performs at the highest possible level, and just makes sense, Meta’s apps, particularly Facebook and Instagram, have been a major part of our online arsenal.
The audiences on these platforms are gigantic, and so when you want to get your content in front of as many people as possible, Facebook and Instagram are basically no-brainers. Plus, when we begin working with a client, they almost always have a somewhat established audience on at least one of these platforms, meaning that there’s a great starting point usually built in. But unfortunately, it’s not all positive.
Finding the right decision
Especially for B Corps, every marketing choice carries a lot of weight. Sustainability, ethics, and responsibility sit right at the forefront of everything we do, and that includes what channels we use. As some issues have been raised about Meta, such as the nature of the content it favours, we’ve begun discussing whether it’s right to continue using it to the degree that we historically have been.
These points raised by our colleagues are valid and important. If we want to be an agency that cares, contributes positively to the community, and is proud of its work, we need to look at everything we do through an objective lens and question whether it’s the right way to approach our marketing efforts.
This is not the first time ethical considerations have arisen regarding social media. In February 2025, we stopped using X (formerly known as Twitter), following controversy surrounding Elon Musk’s ownership.
The problems surrounding Meta
Over the years, Meta has been on the receiving end of some very valid criticism, and in some cases, outrage, over its irresponsible algorithmic amplification, weak accountability structures, and its business model that seems to reward engagement above wellbeing.
One example of this irresponsibility is Meta’s failure around the Rohingya massacre in 2017, in which the Myanmar military committed atrocities against the Rohingya people. Meta’s algorithms were fuelling and supercharging hateful, anti-Rohingya content contributing to the violence against the victims. Meta failed to act against this and arguably profited off the echo chamber of extreme hate spreading across its platforms.
A similar accusation was also made regarding Meta’s role in Ethiopia’s brutal two-year Tigray conflict, where the hateful messaging and provocative content was encouraging the violence, and Meta failed to take appropriate measures.
Meta’s algorithm is heavily flawed
Issues like these highlight a serious inherent problem with how Meta’s algorithm operates, seemingly prioritising engagement, and therefore, profit, over responsible content moderation and protecting real-world communities from harm exacerbated by online hatred.
Meta’s systems are designed to maximise attention. That may lead to amplifying content that provokes outrage, division, or emotional intensity, since these are the kinds of posts that spread and encourage comments, reactions, and shares. Negativity doesn’t do any harm where measurable content performance is concerned. All engagement is good engagement if all you care about is your content being seen and delivering profit. Money talks, and when it’s up to Meta to decide the nature of content its algorithm wants to push… of course, it’ll be the stuff that brings in the bucks.
Why the criticism against Meta is justified and proven
The arguments against Meta’s hate-pushing algorithms aren’t just based on instincts or hunches. Independent investigations and whistleblower reports have repeatedly highlighted these patterns, demonstrating that there is indeed a very real, and very harmful problem with what the platforms are choosing to amplify.
In this whistleblower report from 2021 for example, Frances Haugen, a former product manager at Facebook, claimed that the company’s products “harm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy”. She then went on to say that Facebook is aware that engagement-based ranking without integrity and security systems in place is dangerous but had failed to actually roll out these systems in most languages.
Why we still use Meta for clients
The audiences on these platforms are huge. Particularly without there being many alternatives anywhere near the scale and reach of Meta’s channels, ignoring this side of social media could feel like an unnecessary way to make things more difficult, reduce the impact of marketing, and ultimately, hinder the potential of the strong results clients deserve to see.
Therefore, despite its challenges, Meta remains uniquely effective for most campaigns, especially in health, wellbeing, and community impact. It’s great for:
- Reaching underserved or low-activity communities
- Promoting mental wellbeing support on limited budgets
- Delivering preventative health messages at scale
- Engaging audiences who are otherwise hard to reach
These benefits can’t simply be shrugged off without an actionable replacement at the ready. Walking away entirely would reduce our ability to deliver meaningful outcomes, and that’s a difficult trade-off to make without viable alternatives. In essence, removing budget from this channel reduces the ability to promote health and wellbeing charities and activities that can positively impact people’s lives.
How we use Meta responsibly
We don’t treat Meta as a default platform., It’s not the first port of call and isn’t included in every strategy. We give each channel careful consideration anyway, not just related to how suitable it is for the client and the campaign, but whether it’s necessary. And particularly in Meta’s case, whether the viability of the platform is worth the downsides. We also:
- Employ stricter targeting and placement controls
- Enhance brand safety reviews beyond platform defaults
- Have conversations with clients about which channels are right for them
We are now beginning to have wider conversations with clients about their preferences of using Meta, and if a client chooses not to, we will build campaigns around alternative channels. The most important thing is transparency. If we engage in these conversations, then we feel confident knowing all parties are making an informed decision.
Our B Corp commitment and going forward
Being a B Corp doesn’t just mean abandoning significant components of our business. It’s not quite that simple. But we’re dedicated to taking mindful approaches. By 2028, our goal is to reduce our reliance on high-risk, low-transparency platforms like Meta.
We’re already investing in:
- Sustainable media owners
- Contextual and community led advertising
- Partners with stronger governance and accountability
- Internal education and awareness of the impact channels have on society
Where we stand today
We won’t try to claim Meta is fully ethical or sustainable. But we also won’t compromise client outcomes for the sake of purity. This is why we are engaging conversation and reducing our reliance on the platforms where we can.
The guiding question behind every media plan is simple:
Does this choice create more good than harm, now and over time?
This defines how we use Meta today and why we’re building a future that depends on it less. This is something we’re very much still figuring out.
What do you think? Would you walk away from Meta entirely, or take a phased approach? Do the positive activities/services you promote outweigh the negative? Or are we more or less “captive customers”, with little choice but to use these platforms, for which there are limited alternatives?!
Let us know your thoughts!