I am not on Farcebook and don’t want an account as I only look at occasional things. Lately any FB page I look at is blanked out by this image.
I have tried clearing cookies and history. Only look at public pages - eg local business for opening times, menu, or local community page for town events. Maybe once or twice a day, maybe once a week. Any solution? or is this just FB trying to sign up new accounts.
I’m not seeing this - yet. I still get the login prompt that can be cancelled, and a big banner at the bottom of the page, which you can’t cancel.
Haven’t found anything online to suggest that FB is forcing login for all acess. But if they are cracking down on anonymous access, I’ll start seeing the uncancellable prompt soon. 
Like you, I don’t have a Facebook account and have no intention of getting one.
So it really irritates me that a lot of government entities that are supposed to be keeping the public informed have chosen to use Facebook to present a good deal of their information, but haven’t configured their pages to be publicly accessible without a login prompt and annoying login/signup banners. It is (or used to be) possible.
If there was something I really needed to look up and I was locked out, I would try my other computer. But it now has the same log in prompt, despite my last log in there being weeks ago.
I usually get a small “log in” dialog box which goes away with Esc. Then the annoying banner at the bottom which obscures the final comments. Or I get the “Not Logged In” dialog box which keeps popping up regardless of what you click.
Very annoying that I am sent to a FB page and then can’t log in. Local Elections this Sat in Qld and FB links are coming fast. Even finding out if the Democracy Sausage is on offer at the booth is impossible.
Without a FB userid and profile, you cannot avail yourself of the true experience. You need the endless push of sponsered feed and mindless drivel of posts from people you have never met that just happen to be friends of friends you have made the mistake of friending.
FB wants you to have that enjoyment. And it seems they are cracking down on those who refuse to be assimilated into the Borg-verse. Resistance is futile.
BTW, have had a FB userid and profile since day one. Taken a while to control it, but learned to use it for useful purposes, whilst blocking out the noise.
I suggest clearing cookies. I have a dummy Facebook account on an otherwise largely dormant browser, but can click on links my wife sends me in my main email browser without problems… so far.
Now I get this dialog box. No matter what you do, it won’t let you look at anything. I was trying to look at the Funeral Notices, now that we don’t have a newspaper. If you click OK it just flashes and won’t go away.
Just bite the bullet and sign up then install an ad blocker like Ad Block Plus (free) for relaxed viewing. No biggie.
Why do you think that anyone should have any right to access information on a particular media platform, about millions of users, and information posted, without being a registered member and having a userid and password?
Facebook is free to use. But they do need to have controls on access to their system. And that does mean there is some accountability when some users come in searching for information and are anonymous. Like trawlbots.
So if you do not want to be a member of Facebook, don’t go there.
But all one needs to be a member is just a simple userid. How hard is that?
I understand Facebook requires a login in order to view public profiles. This means many pages which could be seen in the past can no longer be seen without logging in.
Facebook argue it is about protecting privacy and user content, but it is very much about forcing individuals who aren’t on Facebook to create accounts. This is to increase user numbers and ability to gather information/data on individuals which they haven’t done in the past. It is very much about increasing company revenues (through selling data and targeted advertising) and company value.
Facebook gather information on non-users of the site as well as their site users. There is at least one report that is worth reading about the mass tracking of people. It is estimated that around 44% of people who do not have a Facebook account are also tracked. It may be more than this estimate. Here is the link to the report
and an article based on the report findings
Some of the processes used to track people are called Meta-pixel
Users and non-Users are just commodities to be monetised by a number of these big companies. Google does similar data collection.
I think the login issue is just bad page setup for some of these entities. Just like closed groups that require an invite and so the user must be logged in to prove they are a member so they can see the content.
I don’t think that’s the point here.
@zackarii is trying to access information that should be readily available to the public, such as local community announcements.
It shouldn’t be necessary for all of said public to have accounts on Facebook, X, and all the rest just to be able to see what some government department / local govt / community group / energy supply business / etc has to say to the public.
Some of those entities are required to make such information public, and others generally want to reach as wide an audience as possible.
And some such entities have seen Facebook as a convenient free publishing platform and have chosen to make it their sole way of presenting this information.
If Fb has indeed begun forcing login for access to all hosted information, it’s no longer publicly available. But is that the case? I visit a couple of Fb sites from time to time, and I can still access them without logging in. With the cancellable login prompt and nuisance banner, yes, but accessible.
Is zakarii’s problem simply because the entities in question haven’t configured their pages correctly?
In the past most of such public announcements were placed in newspapers for a fee. In some cases some types were done for free, such as giving community service organisations a free spot in the local paper.
I don’t see that being able to make such announcements or to access them is a basic right. You want to put a death notice in paper you pay. You want to read the paper you pay.
As for those persons or organisations who are required to make certain announcements that means they are required to pay if that is what it takes.
I don’t see how either of those cases lead to FB being expected to give you free and unconditional access to their service.
There are some papers that are given out free to the reader and try to make a buck on advertising alone, they are few and have very little coverage and often don’t last long. If you think about it they are not really free. Those who think FB is free or ought to be are not paying attention - it is the same approach of no upfront cost but it isn’t free. They have added taking your data to making you read their ads.
… as did radio, of course. 
Yes FTA TV and radio did have some free announcements but these were the same community matters that local papers would publish, they were not available to keep in touch with friends and relatives nor to announce that auntie Flo had died and would be cremated on Wednesday.
Of all the things that social media does, allowing us to keep in touch with those we don’t see each day and to catch the goss is one of the least destructive - but like all the other things that are free it has a price. If the price of logging in is too much don’t pay it: your choice.
Whilst Facebook uses trackers, setting up an account provides deeper data and personal information.
Unless one doesn’t connect with any friends and gets away with using an alias (which is becoming more difficult as they are more actively in identifying alias accounts and closing them down), Facebook collects additional information such as date of birth, biometric identifiers, friends, interests, posts one views etc. This can then be attached to data collected through trackers making the tracker information more valuable.
Having accounts also allows Facebook to control their revenue stream from advertising, by placing targeted advertising in their platform based on account data they hold.
Number of account holders also directly relates to company value. A good example of this relationship is Netflix which a couple of years ago announced that their subscriber numbers had plateaued and they faced challenges in retaining their existing subscribers. As a result, the share price and company value tanked (lost about 50% of its value in a very short time).
Facebooks (and many other multinational online businesses) try to preserve their business values and is another reason why ‘forcing’ an individual to hold an account to view content is in their own interests.
I wonder, really, if some people do not understand what social media sites are all about.
Just because some organizations have decided that because Facebook has lots of users and that it would make a good communications channel, doesn’t mean it is now a broadcaster. With any sort of responsibilty on FB to deliver, free, information.
Facebook is a community, free to use and participate in, if you want to be a member and avail yourself of the benefits. If not, then don’t. Very simple.
Are there other ways to see Facebook and the alternatives.
To note - politicians, would be politicians, those in leadership, enterprise, community groups etc choose one or the other or several platforms to communicate with the broader community. Facebook is excluding anonymous access to others choosing to not join up.
To note one does not need to sign up to read what is posted on the Choice Community forum, or Choice main web site. Identity rules are only applied to access paid content, or post. There are many other examples from other sites.
Facebook is in many ways meeting the needs of the greater community. It’s a choice of our politicians etc to put the effort into using Facebook. What they say, what community groups (often supported with some public funding etc) and others say is in the public interest. Should it be free for all to access and hear what they are saying? At some point should those making use of Facebook pay to do so and ensure their content faces the whole of the community? IE for more than just those Facebook is happy to let in providing in return Facebook can use in return your identity as another source of revenue?
Irrespective of the free vs paid points of view. Is this leading to a world in which those who join in on Facebook’s terms will come to rule our future? Is the risk which ever social media enterprise/s hold the greater numbers, the better the platform will be able to influence and to an extent control our future lives?
The proposition, hypothetical for the moment, is how would Facebook respond to anyone or group advocating on Facebook to regulate it, break it up or shut it down?
Similar propositions could be made about other key issues on which our communities have strong and opposing view points. It’s not hypothetical considering there are already examples of several platforms “moderating” or banning specific content or individuals. Possible only because there remains some diversity across the media we can access.
It’s not necessarily as simple as one can choose to not join Facebook. There are consequences whether one joins or does not join.
And that is true. BUT, if you do not, you cannot be part of the community. You cannot contribute.
If you want to be part of a community, then be a part of one. With a userid, and that can be whatever you like. Whether it be Choice, or Facebook.
I sometimes despair that some people seem to think that social media sites are somehow public entities. That have obligations to provide information for free. To people that want to not be part of those communities.
And you cannot be informed.
It’s difficult to say otherwise. Facebook is the larger part of Meta Platforms Inc, a very very large enterprise. It’s a listed company. How big? Big enough to survive a $US232 billion fall in market value in Feb 2022 and still be in business.
Can one be fully informed if one cannot access Facebook?
Is Facebook really a social media App - web resource, or as part of Meta has it become something else? Note it monetises the presence of its community users by facilitating marketing access on a scale no other single media organisation can. It has real shareholders and generates a real profit.
Facebook (Meta) has two using groups.
Meta needs both to survive.
Facebook (Meta) presents a different face to each group. Somewhat like Janus, (the ancient Roman god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, frames, and endings).
Meta Platforms Inc operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
Of Meta’s 5 key businesses Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, What’s App and Meta Advertising none are a public service. One only needs to pay for the benefits of using the last, and ignoring the batter that facilitates access to the others.
Is there a point at which Meta’s prominence places it in that role to the exclusion of all others?
Some would say Meta is well on its way to being the one and only. Dependence as with any product can become once hooked an addiction, longer term consequences not always what one might want. Facebook should come with a public health warning. 
The value of Meta’s products, Facebook being the leader is in the success delivered to the business paying for access. How long before the addiction becomes universal? Will a business in the future ever need to look outside the Meta Platform to sell its product?
Using Meta ads, businesses can reach people in their social environment during their social activities and Meta ads enable social recommendation through likes and comments. Users Location, gender, age, education etc. are highly targeted, therefore Meta ads are personalised and micro targeted.
