Meta has filed a patent for a system that can take over a deceased person's social media account — continuing to post, chat, and respond as if that person were still alive. With over 18,000 upvotes and nearly 1,500 comments on Reddit, people are clearly unsettled. And they should be. But not just for the creepy reasons you might think.

This is not primarily a grief tech story. It is a data ownership story.

Here is what the patent actually describes. Meta's system would analyze "user-specific data" including posts, comments, chats, voice messages, likes, and other interactions to reconstruct a digital persona. That persona can then respond to messages, publish content independently, and even simulate audio and video calls. The patent notes this could apply to users who are on extended leave — or who have died.

Mark Zuckerberg said in a 2023 interview that such a system "should ultimately be your call," implying user consent would matter. But the patent itself contains no documented opt-out mechanism. No consent framework. No framework for what happens when a deceased person never made a choice one way or another.

Let's think about what Meta actually has access to. They have years of behavioral data on billions of users: the things you post when happy, what you write when grieving, the strange 2 AM voice memos, the messages you sent before you figured out your own feelings. That data is extraordinarily rich. And unlike a password or a credit card number, you cannot revoke access to data you have already generated.

The patent is, in effect, a roadmap for monetizing that data in perpetuity — long after the person who created it can object, consent, or correct the record. A deceased user's reconstructed persona would presumably still appear in feeds, interact with ads, and keep their network engaged on the platform. The advertising and engagement value of that is real.

Meta told reporters it has "no plans to move forward with this example," calling the patent a protective filing for concepts that may never become products. That is standard corporate hedging. Patents represent capabilities and intentions, not certainties. But companies do not spend legal resources protecting ideas they have no interest in.

The grief tech industry does have real demand. Services like HereAfter AI and StoryFile let families preserve the voices and memories of loved ones. Some people genuinely want this. The question is who controls the system, under what terms, and whose interests it primarily serves.

A grief tech product designed for families gives users control: they choose what data is used, they can turn it off, they own the output. What Meta's patent describes is structurally different. The platform would control the reconstructed persona using data the user never consented to have used this way — because the technology did not exist when they signed up.

There is a word for when a company creates a simulacrum of you, using your data, to engage with your friends and family for the company's commercial benefit after you are no longer around to object. That word is exploitation.

The technology is genuinely impressive. The question is whether this is a product anyone actually wants — or a product that makes the platform a lot of money while grieving families believe they are talking to someone they lost.