What I saw then, what actually happened, and why the same battle over control is now showing up far beyond social media
From Craig Bushon
Back in 2013, I wrote something that, at the time, probably sounded a little aggressive.
I said Facebook was holding business owners hostage.
More specifically, I wrote, “Facebook now holds your audience hostage and expects a ransom every time you want to reach them.”
I also said, “Your posts are now only being seen by a fraction of your fans, unless you pay to promote them.”
That wasn’t based on theory. It was based on what I was watching happen in real time.
Facebook post reach had dropped significantly. Not by small amounts either. In many cases it was more than 50 percent, and some people were reporting drops closer to 90 percent. The audience didn’t disappear. The access to that audience changed.
And the only consistent way to get that access back was to pay.
At the time, I wrote, “Most brands have already paid Facebook advertising to build their fan bases. To pay more money to reach those same fans is not only not right, but a very poor business decision.”
I even took it a step further and said, “NEVER paying to reach the people I already worked hard to get.”
What I was reacting to back then came down to a sequence that didn’t sit right.
Businesses were encouraged to build an audience.
They invested time, content, and often money to grow that audience.
Then access to that same audience became limited unless additional money was spent.
Looking back now, that wasn’t a temporary shift. It was part of how the system was being structured.
I also noticed something else at the time that turned out to matter more than I realized.
I wrote, “Another problem is that Facebook is also limiting who sees the likes/comments/share of your supporters too.”
And then followed it with, “So not only are fewer people seeing your stuff, but fewer people are seeing when someone likes, shares or comments on your stuff.”
That wasn’t just about reach. That was about visibility of engagement.
And that distinction matters.
Because when you control not only what content is seen, but also how reactions to that content are seen, you are shaping how information spreads.
I also questioned the fairness of what I was seeing.
“Facebook seems to be using our hard work and in some cases lots of money… and then twisting and manipulating the data to its advantage… unfairly.”
At the time, I interpreted all of this as something that might push businesses and users away.
I even wrote that we might be watching “the death spiral of a social phenomenon.”
That part didn’t happen.
Facebook didn’t collapse. It adapted.
Its advertising systems improved. Targeting became more precise. The return on investment became strong enough that businesses stayed, even if they didn’t like how the system worked.
Instead of weakening, the platform became more embedded.
And over time, it became clear that Facebook wasn’t just a place to post content. It was a system that manages how content is distributed.
That difference is where the leverage comes from.
If a platform controls distribution, it influences visibility. If it influences visibility, it plays a role in growth, revenue, and reach.
That model didn’t stay contained to Facebook.
You can now see similar structures across nearly every major platform. Different formats, different audiences, but a consistent pattern where organic reach is limited, visibility is filtered, and paid distribution becomes part of the equation.
Now that same pattern is showing up in other industries, including automotive.
Manufacturers are starting to push back on how much control companies like Apple CarPlay and Android Auto have inside the vehicle.
On the surface, that looks like a product decision.
Underneath it, it’s about control of data and the customer relationship.
If Apple or Google controls the interface, they gain insight into how people drive, where they go, what they listen to, how they navigate, and how they interact with the vehicle. That information has long-term value.
Automakers understand that if they give up that layer, they risk losing direct connection with their own customers.
So they are building their own systems. Their own software platforms. Their own data ecosystems. Their own subscription models.
It’s a different industry, but the incentives are the same.
Control the interface. Control the data. Stay as close to the customer as possible.
Back in 2013, the issue looked like a drop in Facebook reach.
Today, it’s easier to see it as part of a broader shift.
Platforms are not just connecting people. They are shaping how information, content, and businesses reach those people.
That doesn’t automatically mean something is being manipulated in a deliberate way. But it does mean outcomes are influenced by how these systems are designed and what they are optimized for.
Most of them are optimized for engagement and revenue.
And that shapes what gets seen.
One of the simplest things I said back then still applies.
“You may want to go back and freshen up your website… you’ve probably been neglecting it.”
And just as important, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket when it comes to marketing your business.”
The businesses that have held up the best over time are the ones that built direct connections alongside platform growth. Websites they own. Email lists they control. Customer relationships that are not dependent on an algorithm.
That doesn’t mean ignoring platforms. It means understanding where your leverage actually sits.
Bottom line
Back in 2013, I was reacting to what looked like a sudden drop in reach on Facebook.
What I was really seeing was an early version of a much larger shift.
The move toward controlling access to audiences, controlling visibility, and controlling data.
I didn’t get every outcome right. But the direction was there.
And now that same pattern isn’t just shaping social media.
It’s showing up across industries wherever control of the customer relationship matters.
Which makes the question more relevant than ever.
Who actually owns the relationship with the customer?
Because that answer determines who holds the leverage going forward.
Disclaimer:
This op-ed reflects analysis and opinion based on publicly observable platform behavior, industry trends, and personal experience over time. It is not intended as a claim of wrongdoing by any specific company, but rather an examination of how evolving business models, incentives, and technologies influence visibility, access, and customer relationships across industries.
