> If you do not agree, just stop using the product. What’s so hard to understand?

I agree with you, and this is exactly what I’ve done. There are a number of businesses and clubs that are interesting to me, but they’re exclusively on Facebook so they’re out of reach for me.

I have my ethics. I’m also the biggest loser in this story. The businesses and orgs have enough other participation that losing me has made no material impact to them.

Now what? Should I continue to be a loser? Thats the choice I’ve made for the last year. I’m starting to wonder if it’s the right one.

Meanwhile, I have to burn effort on making sure FB cant track me all over the internet. So I have my ethics while they demonstrate they have none.

> I’m also the biggest loser in this story.

so you do indeed admit that facebook provides value to you and that sacrificing privacy is costing you more than what it provides you?

Otherwise, you wouldn't consider yourself a loser in this story.

I've completely weened myself off facebook for over 15 years, and it hasn't hurt me one bit. I don't consider myself a loser - any groups or product, or events being organized on facebook will not reach me, and if a friend tries, i actively ask them to email me an invite instead.

Over time, i've also converted several people over this stance too - but only after they've heard about the facebook problems such as the cambridge analytica scandal and others.

You're still being tracked by Facebook though. You might be the biggest loser in the story?

The question is whether you value your privacy or the time Facebook forces you to do to avoid it's tracking more

> so you do indeed admit that facebook provides value to you and that sacrificing privacy is costing you more than what it provides you?

Considering that the value here is access to other other businesses it would be more correct that Facebook locks up value that others create.

> If you do not agree, just stop using the product. What’s so hard to understand?

We are talking about Facebook here, the company that tracks unaware people as much as they can all over the internet, not just on their platform, and they created shadow profiles of people who never registered on their platform, which is something that is clearly against my terms of service, which they ignored. They never apologized or financially compensated me for that.

Why would someone want to defend that company?

Nothing is hard to understand, I just don't agree with your argument.

Facebook does not offer the ability to pay for an ad-free version, so who knows whether people are going to pay. I imagine many would. That said, I am not a member of Facebook's board, I'm not an employee, I'm not even a stockholder. I don't see how it is my ethical obligation to support Facebook's revenue stream. Since the terms of service are not negotiated between myself and Facebook, but written by their lawyers and presented to me implicitly on a "take it or leave it" basis, I do not feel that I've opted into that agreement, nor any obligation to abide by it.

Note that while I'm talking in the first person I don't literally mean me, as I don't use Facebook as mentioned in other comments, but any hypothetical consumer who wants to block ads or otherwise undermine Facebook's ability to track them.

What this argument ignores is context.

The ethical landscape shifts when you consider that Facebook is in a monopoly position of power over a major aspect of modern life and culture.

The user's decision is not about using or not using Facebook. It's a decision about whether they can participate with their social groups, or interact with certain businesses (who are also hostage to this monopoly), or help out their local charity organizers. In some regions, it's a decision about whether to gain access to the Internet at all.

Reducing the decision to a reading of the TOS, imposed by this monopoly power, ignores this glaring context, and fails to ask another important question: is the business model itself ethical?

And as others have pointed out, one need not even be a Facebook user to be subjected to their tracking, which is the tip of the iceberg in terms of their less than ethical behavior.

What's wrong with letting (or helping) an untenable business model externalising costs to society at large crash and burn?

I've neither created a Facebook account nor consented to their tracking (and other practices). Why is it unethical to defend against Facebooks attempt to track everyone and extract value from trying to steer my eyeballs to their superfluous (to me) so called content?

> you do not agree, just stop using the product

I don’t use their product. They still negatively impact me. So yes, I think I’m morally entitled to make their lives difficult.

When does this cross into morally obligated to make mining user privacy difficult?

> When does this cross into morally obligated to make mining user privacy difficult?

When it comes to civic service. A space where, to date, privacy activists in America have faced a barrage of nihilism and indifference.

You said it's unethical, and when pressed for an explanation, you merely mentionned that breaking the terms of service make it unethical. Your viewpoint is facile and reduces ethics to a mere red light / green light view of the world.

Terms of service do not suddenly make everything outside them unethical. It can be that when you ponder the power dynamic, and the expectations, that breaking the terms of service is the only ethical choice.

If the use of AdNauseum is affecting their revenue stream, why don't they just block their users who are observed using it?

If they aren't going to follow through with their side of this "breach of terms", then users are free to continue using them.

So you would feel ethically justified in shoplifting for as long as you aren't caught?

This is the anti-piracy stance too. Information cannot be stolen like this, only duplicated. It isn't the same thing. I am not a Facebook user nor have I ever been. I have never agreed to allow Facebook to track me. I don't owe then my data just because a random blog decides to embed a tracker.

Edit: clarification

If information cannot be stolen, how is Facebook harming you? They've taken nothing.

No, that's not theft it's exploitation by a large company against people who struggle to defend themselves against it.

Privacy is a completely different beast.

Would you feel ethically justified to support the mafia as long as they will not give you a pair of concrete shoes?

Facebook isn't your friendly neighborhood general store, they spread misinformation that is damaging to the structure of society. Damaging their business is good.

So if the neighborhood store is run by assholes, I should steal from them?

If the neighborhood store is run by a mafia, then yes, you should.

We're not talking about "rude to customers" type assholery in facebook's case.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-...

By that standard HN spreads misinformation. Every social network.

What happens when FB violates their own TOS, especially when it relates to privacy? Absolutely nothing. FB created their own game of cat and mouse.

I feel like if Facebook didn't have a history of playing unethical hardball then people would feel more guilty about returning the favor?

I would pay a subscription to use a privacy-protecting social media. If Facebook snapped its fingers and offered such a product I might even use theirs if it was popular.

You shouldn't, those funds would go into the pot of money they use to fuel their misinformation machine.

In my mind, without the need to chase advertising money, misinformation/attention is not something they need to maximize.

If I have a website that has a terms of service that says anybody who visits my website must give me all their money are you obligated to give me all your money if you go to it?