It is assumed that your Facebook or Instagram profile will continue to "live."
Meta has registered a patent for a revolutionary neural network capable of mimicking user activity on social media even after their death. It is expected that the AI will maintain a "presence" in the digital world "when the user takes a long break or if they have died." However, this innovation raises profound questions about the boundaries of human identity, ethics, and the very nature of death, to which humanity has yet to find answers.
It is assumed that your Facebook or Instagram profile will continue to "live" – liking friends' posts, leaving comments, responding to messages, and even making video or audio calls. This is planned to be implemented based on the user's digital footprint: their activity history, likes, comments, and other data sets that the company possesses. The patent, authored by Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth, presents arguments in favor of this system: the absence of posts from the user, whether due to a "detox" break or death, deprives followers of part of their experience. "They will miss you," is succinctly explained in the patent. For influencers, whose income depends on engagement, this is a salvation, as the audience will not disperse while the owner is resting or... leaving forever.
And likely anticipating a wave of misunderstanding, the company hastened to assure that the patent is merely an idea, not a mandatory plan of action. However, the mere fact of registration raises questions.
There is almost no accurate statistics on the number of "dead" accounts in the literal sense. However, according to data from 2016, there are about 20 million accounts of deceased individuals registered on Facebook, and if the trend continues, by 2065 there will be more dead users than living ones on this social network. The situation is likely similar on other platforms (such as VKontakte, Twitter, Instagram). At the same time, ten years ago, Facebook introduced a "legacy contact" feature that allows managing the account of the deceased. Last year, Mark Zuckerberg discussed virtual avatars for the deceased on Lex Fridman's podcast: "This can help cope with loss, reliving memories."
Startups like Replika, born from the personal tragedy of Eugenia Kuyda after losing a friend, or You, Only Virtual (YOV) by Justin Harrison, which emerged due to his mother's illness, already offer users the chance to subscribe to digital copies of loved ones. Microsoft patented a bot in 2021 that mimics the voice of the deceased. Even the startup 2wai promises to digitize a relative based on biometrics for eternal conversations.
But this is where shadows emerge. Edina Harbindja, a law professor at the University of Birmingham and an expert on digital rights and posthumous privacy, sees not only ethics but also commerce in this: "More engagement means more data for AI. It’s a business."
For context: in 2025, Meta generated a record $201 billion, of which $196 billion came from advertising – 97.6% of total revenue. This is a 22% increase compared to the previous year, fueled by AI tools. In this light, by maintaining account activity, Meta ensures a continuous flow of engagement. More activity means more data for training models, which in turn target ads more accurately, creating a vicious cycle of profit.
By the end of the third quarter of 2025, Meta planned to spend $72 billion on capital expenditures related to AI, and for 2026, between $115 and $135 billion, primarily on AI infrastructure. All to dominate in "personal superintelligence," as Zuckerberg himself put it, where eternal accounts generate endless content, feeding algorithms.
Sociologist Joseph Davis from the University of Virginia warns: "Grief requires acceptance of loss. Let the dead remain dead – the idea of their 'return' confuses all the cards." In social networks, even the Western community has dubbed the concept "demonic" and "inhumane."
"One of the most repugnant ideas one can imagine," quotes a user in the Daily Mail. Overall, summarizing the general outrage, users do not understand where the line is between comfort and deception. Is it even permissible to delve into the personal data of the deceased without their consent during their lifetime? This last question will likely become key to understanding the attitude of 21st-century humans towards death.
