According to Silicon Republic, a new nationally representative survey of 1,001 Irish adults, commissioned by telecoms company Pure Telecom, reveals significant user backlash against social media ownership. The key finding is that one in four people (25%) have already quit a social media platform specifically because of who owns it. Furthermore, 67% of respondents expressed concern over platform ownership, while only 33% said it doesn’t bother them. The age group most affected is 18-24 year olds, where 28% have already quit and another 37% are considering it. In response to these ownership and privacy fears, half of all users have updated their privacy settings in the past year.
The ethics dilemma
So here’s the thing: people are clearly connecting the dots between a platform’s owner and their own personal data. The survey notes that many quit due to fears over how an “unscrupulous owner” might store and use their information. This isn’t just abstract corporate distrust anymore; it’s a direct reaction to the very public personas of certain billionaire owners. It’s fascinating, and a bit ironic, that in an age of algorithmic feeds, the face of the company at the top still matters so much. But does it matter enough to actually leave? For a quarter of users, the answer is yes.
The search for alternatives
Now, this sentiment is creating a market desire—or at least a wistful hope—for something better. A sizable 64% of participants said they’re interested in signing up for a platform they consider “ethical.” That’s a huge potential audience for any new, principled contender. But then reality comes crashing in. Over half (54%) of those same people believe no such ethical platform could ever truly exist. That’s the real kicker. It’s a classic case of “I want it, but I don’t believe it’s possible.” This cynicism is probably social media’s biggest moat. Users feel trapped between undesirable giants and non-existent utopias.
The impossible platform
What would an “ethical” social network even look like? That’s the billion-dollar question. Would it be a non-profit? User-owned? Funded by subscriptions instead of surveillance-based advertising? Every model has massive trade-offs. A subscription model limits reach and diversity. A non-profit needs funding from somewhere, which often comes with strings. And let’s be honest, scaling any online community to a global size almost inevitably leads to moderation nightmares and ethical compromises. The survey suggests people are idealistic but ultimately pessimistic. They’ve seen how the sausage is made, and they don’t think a clean version is on the menu.
The bigger picture
Despite all this angst, CEO Paul Connell pointed out the ultimate paradox: 98% of adults are still social media users. We’re concerned, we’re quitting specific apps, but we’re not logging off for good. The need for connection and community simply outweighs the ethical discomfort for most. This tension is playing out on a global stage, with governments stepping in where user choice feels insufficient—like Australia’s new ban for under-16s. So the trend isn’t towards abandonment, but towards a more fraught, conscious, and tactical use. People will hop platforms, tighten privacy settings, and complain, but they probably won’t disappear. The relationship has just become a lot more complicated.
