In early January, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a major shift in Meta’s content moderation policy, starting in the United States with significantly scaling back efforts to combat misinformation and harmful content. At the time, I said this decision raises profound concerns about the direction of social platforms.

It also serves as a stark vindication of the decision in 2021 by British cosmetics retailer Lush to walk away from social media, stating that they would leave Meta properties Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, plus Snapchat and TikTok, “until these platforms can provide a safer environment for their users.”

Lush Cosmetics operates in over 50 countries with more than 850 stores, and manufacturing facilities in six countries. It has 12,000 employees. For FY23, the company reported annual revenue of £816 million (just over $1 billion).

Meta’s latest move not only fails to make platforms safer, it makes them even less trustworthy than before. If Lush was waiting for an improvement, this shift confirms that the opposite is happening. Lush’s stance with its anti-social media policy, once seen as radical, now seems prescient.

Their rationale was clear: these platforms, with their algorithm-driven engagement models, were not aligned with Lush’s brand ethos of well-being and ethical responsibility. Critics at the time questioned whether abandoning social media was a strategic misstep. After all, social platforms were – and still are – dominant marketing channels for businesses of all sizes.

Fast forward to 2025, and Jack Constantine, Lush’s Chief Digital Officer, reinforced the wisdom of this decision in an article on 6 February for The Drum titled “Meta’s fact-checking U-turn vindicates Lush’s decision to ditch social.” With Meta scaling back fact-checking efforts, Constantine makes a compelling case that Lush’s decision was not just about principle but also about foresight.

“Developments in recent months have reinforced and vindicated our decision to withdraw from having an active presence on those platforms. After seeing how Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X), has purposefully allowed the spread of misinformation and hate speech leading to real-world violence in favour of his far-right political agenda and now Meta jumping on the bandwagon, it’s a position we are firm in maintaining.

“Musk and Zuckerberg have made it even more apparent that they are fully aware of what they are doing and how this only furthers the harm that this has on young people’s mental health and marginalised communities.”

Jack Constantine, Lush, 6 February 2025

Supporters of Meta’s approach argue that less moderation fosters free speech, but critics – including Lush – believe this only fuels harm.

Owning the Relationship with Customers

Lush’s approach, as Constantine highlights, is about owning their audience rather than renting it from social platforms. They have shifted their focus to more direct forms of engagement:

• Email marketing: A tried-and-true method that allows for direct, personalised communication.
• Web content: Investing in a strong website and rich, engaging storytelling.
• Real-world events: Building community through immersive, in-person experiences.
• Apps and owned digital spaces: Creating ecosystems where they control the experience and the data.

This isn’t just about ethics; it’s a strategic move that reduces reliance on third-party platforms whose rules – and stability – are constantly shifting for the worse, making Lush’s proactive decision even more relevant today.

The Bigger Question: Is Big-Tech Social Media Still Worth It?

As Constantine argues, the fundamental issue is that social media platforms like Meta’s and X are not designed to serve brands, protect users, or safeguard truth. They are built to maximise clicks, likes and shares – even at the cost of misinformation, misuse of user data, toxicity, and public trust – that masquerade as “engagement”.

For brands that value authenticity, genuine engagement, and meaningful relationships, this raises critical questions:

• Is social media still a trustworthy environment for brand engagement?
• Does it make sense to pour money into advertising on platforms that deprioritise trust and safety?
• Are there better ways to connect with audiences without the filter of an algorithm?

If We’re at a Breaking Point, Where Do We Go From Here?

Lush’s approach may not work for every brand. Social media is still an effective channel for many, particularly for customer service and brand awareness. But the larger conversation is shifting. Companies are beginning to rethink their dependence on platforms they cannot trust and which pay scant regard to the people who engage with others on those platforms and their well-being.

While walking away from social media isn’t viable for every organisation, rethinking reliance on big platforms is. We’re already seeing alternative models emerge:

• Federated Social Networks – ActivityPub (connecting Mastodon, Threads, and others) and AT Protocol (Bluesky) enable decentralised, community-driven, niche networks that don’t rely on a single company’s (or individual’s) control.
• Owned Digital Spaces – Brands like Lush are shifting to direct engagement through email, events, apps, and content on their own websites.
• Community-Driven Platforms – Interest-based networks (like Discord, Reddit, and even LinkedIn Groups) offer more meaningful, controlled engagement without relying on unpredictable algorithms or the whims of platform owners.

It’s time for more brands to assess their social media strategies honestly. Should they continue investing in platforms that no longer align with their values? Or should they start exploring new ways to build deeper, more meaningful connections?

A shift away from these platforms presents an opportunity to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into brand communication – not as a checkbox, but as a foundational principle.

“I think more businesses will follow our lead once they see the lack of stability in these big tech social platforms. I am also hopeful that there’ll be more alternatives available.”

Jack Constantine, Lush, 6 February 2025

Lush made its choice. Now, more businesses may start to ask: Should we? The question isn’t just whether brands should leave social media – it’s time to stop renting audiences and foster genuine, meaningful engagement.

Brands should refocus on what truly matters: honest communication, inclusivity, and the well-being of the communities they serve. Social platforms have long prioritised algorithmic manipulation over user welfare, often at the expense of marginalised voices.

Let’s not forget that the essence of ‘social media’ is in the word ‘social’– real connections, authentic conversations, and people-first engagement should be at the heart of any strategy moving forward.

It’s time to rebuild digital engagement on trust, respect, and real human connection.

(Photos via Lush PR Image Library.)

Related Reading:

• Lush shows it’s time for an anti social media policy (28 November 2021)