The latest boycott of Facebook, now more than 800 brands strong, has some people asking whether this will be the movement to force change at the social media giant.
Don't hold your breath. This tango has happened before and now we just have a few more bodies crammed into the dance.
Marketing expert and educator Mark Ritson expects this one to go the same way the others have gone.
"We have all been here before," Ritson says.
"Big brands posture and push back against Facebook's legendary inability to monitor and sanction the content on its site. But then things go quiet. Brands move money back to Facebook. And we wait another few years for another episode to play out."
Facebook's investors certainly don't seem to care too much about the latest boycott. After a small blip, the company's stock price has recovered to be the highest in its history.
"People forget that Facebook's DNA is tied to transgression and rule-breaking," says Ritson.
"When Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook's precursor Facesmash, he raided the IT systems at Harvard to steal all the student headshots for the site. He was meant to be expelled as a result, but not only got away with it, but also moved on to create Facebook a few months later. Zuckerberg knows the rules don't matter. And he is probably, unfortunately, right."
One name you're unlikely to see on any boycott list is that of the New Zealand Government – or any local politician for that matter.
This is notable because the Government is one of the biggest advertisers on social media in New Zealand.
Data from researcher SMI, tracking advertising spend before the full force of Covid-19 was felt between January and March, saw the Government ranked as the fourth biggest advertiser on social media (which is 98 per cent made up of Facebook). The only sectors bigger than the Government were the food, retail and air travel industries.
This research is limited in that it only tracks the spend bought through media agencies and doesn't take into account the millions small and medium-sized businesses spend buying ads directly through the media company.
What this data does is give us an indication of the willingness of the Government to pour money into an interface so often criticised for its moral compass.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, an avid Facebook user, was this week asked about her position on the social media channel at a post-Cabinet press conference and indicated she would continue to use it.
She said she did not believe that a personal boycott of the channel would drive the changes the public would like to see.
"Progress has been made," she said.
"Do I want it to speed up? Yes. Do I want more work to be done at greater pace around, for instance, algorithms— because this is where civil society continues to have a number of concerns? Yes.
"But at this stage, my strong view is still that we need to keep trying to make progress through those forums, and my decision not to do a Facebook Live is I don't believe going to make that same inroad."
This is in line with the views of the Association of New Zealand Advertisers chief executive Lindsay Mouat, who told the Herald he did not believe a temporary boycott could drive meaningful change.
"I think it's better to engage in dialogue," he said.
"That's why the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), set up after the Christchurch attack, that brings advertisers, agencies and media platforms together has a really important role to play to facilitate change and reduce online hate and harm."
A political fight
The business community has some sway, but this is ultimately a political fight.
The thing that worries Facebook most isn't a group of protesters huddled together online calling for change. It's regulation.
And herein lies the great conundrum.
We are dependent on attention addicts to incorporate the policy changes necessary to limit the power of the tool that gives them direct access to the eyeballs and ears of the audience they crave.
Donald Trump will beat his chest and complain about social media, then shortly thereafter tweet up a storm about the Confederate flag.
It doesn't matter whether a politician is painted in red, blue or green. The allure of unedited, direct access to the masses is simply too good an opportunity to pass up.
Facebook understands better than most that this is a political fight. And this is part of the reason the company recruited former UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to take on the role of vice president of global affairs and communications.
An op-ed written by Clegg this month in response to the idea that it profits from hate carried an important line that gets to the crux of the issue at hand.
"As a former politician myself, I know that the only way to hold the powerful to account is ultimately through the ballot box," Clegg wrote.
The unintended point Clegg makes here is that if we want to see sharp changes in the rules that govern Facebook, then we need politicians willing to incorporate those rules.
There's a parallel here with climate change movement and the argument by economist Mark Jaccard that the single best way for citizens to support climate change is to elect what he calls "climate-sincere politicians" and keep them in power.
The same thinking applies to regulation in the social media space. The only problem is finding a politician who isn't hooked on the product they're meant to be regulating.