Public debates about digital platforms often focus on blaming technology companies for declining online service quality, data breaches, and so on. This process is frequently described as “enshittification.” While these critiques are valid, they risk positioning users as passive victims waiting for regulation or corporate reforms. This lightning talk shifts the focus from blame to agency by examining five widely held myths that discourage people from refusing or resisting dominant digital platforms.

In five short provocations, the talk challenges assumptions that platform decline is solely a leadership problem, that leaving is impossible because “everyone else is there,” that platform use is driven by genuine enjoyment rather than engineered compulsion, that users can freely modify or resist technologies they dislike, and that surveillance is an unavoidable price for safety, efficiency, or education. Drawing on critical perspectives from digital culture and education research, the talk argues that these myths normalize dependence, surveillance, and compliance,- often from an early age.

The session frames refusal not as technophobia or withdrawal, but as a form of digital disobedience and responsible digital citizenship. The goal is to encourage participants to reconsider their own everyday digital practices and recognize the power embedded in seemingly small choices.

Discussion will be generated through a closing challenge that invites participants to identify one platform, tool, or practice they could fully or partially refuse, starting immediately.