The Dual Edge of 'Free': Why Companies Force Engagement Over User Delight

When engaging with popular digital platforms, users often encounter design decisions that feel counter-intuitive or even hostile. A recent example highlights this tension: a a user was forced to follow suggested accounts via a modal, with no clear bypass, before being able to access their main feed. This kind of aggressive engagement tactic is a stark illustration of the ongoing debate between corporate monetization strategies and user experience.

The Business Logic Behind Seemingly "Anti-Human" Designs

At the core of many such design choices is the fundamental economic reality of large, "free" internet services. Companies operating at the scale of Meta are not charities; they are multi-billion dollar enterprises with a responsibility to generate profit for their shareholders. From this perspective, users are not just customers to be served but are often viewed as a hybrid of volunteers and products themselves. Their attention and data are monetized primarily through advertising.

In this model, users who do not sufficiently engage with the platform – and by extension, with the advertisements displayed – are considered a financial drain. They consume resources without contributing to revenue. Therefore, design decisions that compel engagement, such as the forced following of accounts, are implemented to either convert these low-value users into profitable ones or, implicitly, to encourage them to leave the platform if they are unwilling to participate in the monetization model. From a purely financial standpoint, if such a design effectively retains users and increases ad views, it is considered a "good design."

The User Experience Dilemma: Erosion of Trust and Loyalty

However, this purely economic perspective often clashes dramatically with the user's perception. Many argue that these aggressive tactics, while financially rational for the company's bottom line, constitute "bad design" from a human-centered perspective. They are often described as:

• Anti-human and Annoying: Such forced interactions create frustration and a sense of being manipulated.
• Eroding Credibility: Each seemingly minor dehumanizing decision chips away at user trust and loyalty.
• Unsustainable in the Long Run: While short-term engagement metrics might tick up, the long-term consequence can be widespread user abandonment as people seek more enjoyable and respectful platforms. The argument is that prioritizing immediate profit over genuine user satisfaction ultimately leads to a decaying product and a vanishing user base.

The Alternative: Building Value Through Enjoyment and Trust

Critics suggest that a more sustainable approach would involve building products that genuinely attract and retain users through their inherent enjoyability and utility, fostering true loyalty rather than extracting forced engagement. This would involve prioritizing a positive user experience, avoiding scandals, and rebuilding public trust. However, for established companies with deeply ingrained business models and existing trust deficits, shifting to such a user-centric paradigm is a significant challenge.

Ultimately, the tension between economic imperatives and human-centered design remains a critical consideration in the digital landscape. Users are increasingly aware of the implicit costs of "free" services, and the debate continues on whether aggressive monetization strategies are a necessary evil for survival or a self-destructive path.