Mom Kept Logging Into Dead Grandma’s Facebook, So Her Daughter Shut It Down

Social media has become a modern extension of how families grieve, remember, and stay connected. When someone passes away, those digital spaces can carry just as much emotional weight as physical keepsakes.

In this situation, a daughter learned that her mother was interacting with a deceased family member’s online presence in a way that unsettled multiple relatives. Attempts to address the issue quietly led nowhere, and discomfort continued to grow.

Eventually, a choice was made that changed access permanently and triggered an explosive reaction.

In this situation, the OP’s decision to convert her late grandmother’s Facebook account into a legacy/memorialized profile reflects a deeper conflict between healthy mourning practices and boundary-pushing grief behaviors.

After her grandmother died, her mom continued logging into the account, an action that made other family members uncomfortable and raised concerns about privacy and propriety.

In response, the OP had the account memorialized so that no one, including her mom, could log in as if the grandmother were still “present.”

That move sparked anger and cut off direct communication with her mother, which highlights just how emotionally charged online legacies can be.

From a technical and platform standpoint, social media companies like Facebook have developed specific policies for handling accounts of deceased users.

Facebook allows users to designate a legacy contact before they die so the chosen person can manage the account after death, but even that contact does not get access to comments, private messages, or login credentials.

Memorialized accounts serve as places for friends and family to gather and share memories but don’t allow anyone to use the account as if the person were still alive.

This means that once an account is memorialized, no one can log in or interact as though they were the deceased person, preserving dignity and preventing misuse.

The creation of a memorialized or legacy account is deeply rooted in the idea of digital inheritance and remembrance.

In today’s interconnected world, social media profiles are more than just pages, they are digital artifacts with emotional and historical value.

Scholars examining the phenomenon note that these accounts serve as part of a broader pattern of continuing bonds, where bereaved individuals maintain ongoing psychological and emotional connections to deceased loved ones.

These bonds can manifest through storytelling, rituals, or even symbolic interactions online, all of which are considered normal components of grieving.

Even so, the emotional landscape of digital grieving isn’t universally straightforward.

Many people use social platforms as a space to express loss, share memories, and gather communal support, but there is also ongoing debate about the ethics and etiquette of digital afterlives.

Users and specialists grapple with questions like: who should control a deceased person’s account, how that control should be exercised, and whether continued access supports healthy mourning or causes confusion for others.

Time magazine and social media commentators have highlighted this tension, noting that mourning practices on social platforms vary widely, and unspoken norms about how to grieve online often clash with technical options that social networks provide.

In many families, ongoing access to a deceased loved one’s account can be a source of comfort.

For instance, some friends and relatives post tributes on memorialized profiles or revisit photos and messages as part of their bereavement process.

Yet when a single individual uses the account in a way that others find unsettling, such as repeatedly logging in as if the deceased were alive, it can cross into territory that feels invasive or emotionally confusing.

Problems arise when one person’s coping mechanism negatively affects others’ emotional space or violates implicit agreements about privacy and respect for the deceased.

From a neutral perspective, the OP’s choice to have the account memorialized is a reasonable response to a boundary violation and aligns with how Facebook itself intends these features to be used: to preserve the memory of the deceased while preventing deceptive or inappropriate access.

A memorialized account limits activity and clearly signals that the person has passed away; it locks the account in place rather than erasing it, allowing memories to remain without misuse.

If anything, the core tension here is not merely technical but emotional and relational: the OP and other family members were uncomfortable with her mom’s behavior, which blended grief with potentially unhealthy online engagement.

A memorialization request isn’t inherently malicious; it’s a step toward safeguarding the deceased’s digital legacy and protecting family members from ongoing confusion or hurt.

At the same time, some families find value in sharing memories on such pages, and ideally, these decisions are made collaboratively rather than unilaterally when possible.

Overall, mourning in the digital age involves balancing respect for the deceased, sensitivity to family members’ feelings, and adherence to platform protocols designed to prevent misuse.

Memorializing an account is an established and supported method Facebook provides to honor someone’s memory while preventing continued personal access, and when family members can’t agree on boundaries, it can serve as a clear, respectful way to move forward.

These are the responses from Reddit users:

These commenters firmly supported the OP, arguing that a deceased person’s social media account should not remain active.

This group argued that grief does not excuse behavior that harms others or violates boundaries.

These users shared personal experiences of devastating parental loss and framed the mother’s actions as a coping mechanism rather than malice.

This commenter landed on ESH, arguing that while the mother’s behavior may have been unhealthy, OP also made assumptions about intent.

These commenters judged YTA, not because the legacy option was wrong in principle, but because of how it was done.