It’s off-topic - but I found this BBC podcast on the simplification of using Stockholm syndrome as an explanation fascinating:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000s7n1

This is why we need to promote the existence of more and better alternatives. Because "if you don't like it, leave" doesn't work if there is nowhere else to go. But if there is, it does.

Perhaps we need a publicly funded, rather than corporate advertising funded social platform?

Or public funding for development of federated protocols and free software implementations.

>they literally cannot leave. Or they have children, or leaving might put others at risk.

>Point of working through the analogy being, even on an individual basis framing leaving a relationship as some sort of arbitrary choice is kind of nonsensical

Could you give some common examples where an individual "literally cannot leave" FB, or where leaving FB would put others at risk?

The best example I could think of is a small business owner losing potential money from taking their business page off FB.

I can give you a few direct examples. I live in a condo. Our entire building management runs through a facebook group. My girlfriend works with kids whose schooling right now is managed through whatsapp. I know quite a lot of people who are required by their employer to maintain a facebook presence because that's how they get into contact with a lot of clients. For a lot of folks FB and affiliates have become part of the basic digital infrastructure.

Thank you for the thought provoking responses.

>I know quite a lot of people who are required by their employer to maintain a facebook presence because that's how they get into contact with a lot of clients.

Being compelled to mix business with personal life like this seems quite objectionable indeed.

The term is trauma bonding for psychological attachment in abusive situation. Stockholm syndrome is something else.