1. Introduction

Over the last decade, social media platforms have evolved from recreational communication tools into fundamental infrastructures for business operations, educational practice, academic dissemination, and professional identity building. Among these platforms, Facebook remains one of the most influential, with billions of active users globally and an established ecosystem for marketing, learning communities, research dissemination, and professional networking (Statista, 2024). However, the increasing centrality of social media raises significant concerns about platform governance, particularly when design changes are implemented without meaningful user consultation. Such changes can disrupt business strategies, educational workflows, and professional communication practices.

This article explores (1) how Facebook and similar social media platforms are used across sectors, and (2) how unconsulted design changes affect users’ agency, productivity, and digital equity.

This Article is the opinion of a Facebook user since 15 years.

2. Use of Facebook and Social Media Across Sectors

2.1 Businesses and Social Media

Businesses—large and small—increasingly rely on Facebook for:

Digital marketing and targeted advertising
Facebook provides sophisticated targeting algorithms that enable segmentation by demographics, behavior, and interests (Tuten & Solomon, 2020).
Customer engagement and service delivery
Messenger chatbots, Facebook Pages, and comment sections allow for high-speed customer support and brand interaction (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019).
E-commerce integration
Social commerce features such as Facebook Shops facilitate mobile-first transactions and enable micro-entrepreneurs to enter the digital marketplace (Laato et al., 2021).
Brand visibility and analytics
Insights dashboards give businesses real-time metrics on reach, engagement, and campaign performance.

Dependence on Facebook means businesses are vulnerable to algorithmic shifts or design modifications that affect visibility and customer traffic.

2.2 Educators and the Use of Facebook

Facebook has become an informal yet widely used educational ecosystem:

Learning communities and peer support groups
Teachers use Facebook Groups to share resources, collaborate on curriculum materials, and support professional development (Greenhow & Lewin, 2016).
Communication with students and parents
School Pages and private groups support announcements, reminders, and extracurricular coordination.
Open educational resources (OER)
Many educators distribute learning materials and videos through Facebook due to its accessibility and widespread use in low-income regions (Manca & Ranieri, 2016).

Educators benefit from Facebook’s familiarity and low barriers to access; however, they often become dependent on specific features (e.g., Group layouts, event creation, notifications), making design changes potentially disruptive to classroom communication and digital pedagogy.

2.3 Academics and Facebook

Academic professionals use Facebook for:

Public scholarship and knowledge dissemination
Scholars build public profiles to share research findings with non-academic audiences (Veletsianos, 2016).
Networking and research collaboration
Academic Facebook groups and communities of practice enable exchange of ideas across borders.
Recruitment of research participants
Facebook Ads have become a cost-effective tool for sampling populations in social science research (Thornton et al., 2016).

Disruptive design changes, especially those affecting privacy settings or group visibility, can undermine academic outreach and research operations.

2.4 Professionals and Career Development

Professionals from various fields—healthcare, law, engineering, creative industries—use Facebook for:

Personal branding
Maintaining public pages and portfolios increases reach and professional credibility (Khedher, 2015).
Client engagement and networking
Closed groups enable peer advice, mentorship, and case discussions (with ethical boundaries).
Professional communities of practice
These groups foster continuing professional development (CPD) by enabling collaborative learning.

Here again, platform stability is crucial. When features change unexpectedly, professionals can lose access to communities or clients that constitute a portion of their livelihood.

3. Consequences of Design Changes Without Public Consultation

3.1 Disruption of Established Workflows

Frequent interface redesigns, algorithm updates, or changes to Group and Page structures can disrupt:

businesses’ advertising strategies,
educators’ class communication,
academics’ research dissemination, and
professionals’ client interactions.

Because these features form part of users’ daily operational routines, unannounced changes lead to significant inefficiencies and confusion (Light, Burgess & Duguay, 2018).

3.2 Loss of User Autonomy and Digital Agency

When design changes are imposed without consultation, users experience reduced agency:

They cannot influence changes despite being primary stakeholders.
Their content, visibility, and workflows become dependent on opaque decisions by platform owners.
Users become "locked-in" due to the lack of viable alternatives—an example of platform dependency (Plantin et al., 2018).

This raises ethical issues about platform power and user rights.

3.3 Economic and Productivity Costs

For businesses, design changes can lead to:

reduced post visibility due to algorithm shifts,
sudden drops in engagement affecting sales,
increased marketing costs to adjust strategies,
retraining staff to learn new interfaces.

Studies show that even minor interface changes can result in measurable productivity losses across sectors (Tarafdar et al., 2019).

3.4 Impact on Digital Equity

When platforms redesign interfaces without public input, certain user groups are disproportionately affected:

older adults, who struggle with sudden interface changes;
users with disabilities, when accessibility features are altered;
low-literacy or low-income users, who rely heavily on familiar interfaces;
educators and students in disadvantaged regions, where Facebook often substitutes for formal learning platforms.

This reinforces the "digital divide" and undermines equitable participation (van Dijk, 2020).

3.5 Trust and Platform Legitimacy Issues

Lack of consultation erodes trust. Users may perceive the platform as prioritizing:

advertisers over everyday users,
profit over usability,
surveillance over transparency.

Scholars emphasise that trust is a foundational element in digital ecosystem sustainability (Smyth, 2022). Unconsulted changes create sentiments of “betrayal”, especially among professionals and educators who rely on stability.

3.6 Ethical and Governance Implications

Platforms like Facebook are now public infrastructures used for education, healthcare communication, disaster response, and political participation. Changes affecting such infrastructures should follow principles of:

participatory design,
transparency,
ethical governance,
stakeholder consultation.

When this does not occur, the platform exercises unaccountable power, raising concerns about democratic governance in digital spaces (Gillespie, 2018).

4. Conclusion

Facebook and other social media platforms have become essential tools for businesses, educators, academics, and professionals. Their value lies in communication efficiency, collaboration opportunities, marketing potential, and community building. However, design changes implemented without public consultation can cause severe disruptions, undermining user autonomy, economic stability, educational continuity, and digital equity.

Moving forward, social media platforms must adopt more participatory and transparent governance models that involve diverse stakeholders. As these platforms increasingly function as global public goods, meaningful consultation is not only desirable—it is ethically necessary.

References

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). “Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning.” Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2019). “Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence.” Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.
Khedher, M. (2015). “A Brand for Everyone: Personal Branding and Social Media.” International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 7(2), 54–65.
Laato, S., Islam, A. N., Farooq, A., et al. (2021). “Uncovering the role of social media for entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 171.
Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). “The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps.” New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900.
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). “Facebook and the others: Potentials and obstacles of Social Media for teaching in higher education.” Computers & Education, 95, 216–230.
Plantin, J. C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). “Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook.” New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310.
Smyth, S. (2022). Trust in Digital Environments. Routledge.
Statista. (2024). “Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide.”
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu-Nathan, T. (2019). “Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations.” Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42.
Thornton, L. et al. (2016). “Using Facebook for recruiting research participants.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(3), 39–48.
Tuten, T. L., & Solomon, M. R. (2020). Social Media Marketing. Sage.
van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Polity Press.
Veletsianos, G. (2016). Social Media in Academia: Networked Scholars. Routledge.

Pages