It's not like saying that at all.

God I wonder what people with large extended families did before Facebook was invented! Surely they were all isolated and out of touch, how sad.

This comment was not directed at people running Facebook business accounts or political campaigns. The reason this thread produces nothing of value is because of pedantic comments such as yours bringing up irrelevant edge cases.

Large extended families used the best option they had before Facebook. Now they have Facebook, they use Facebook, because it's the best, most useful option for the vast majority of them. This thread is full of people saying that if people aren't willing to switch to other platforms for you then you should cut them out of your life. This might be fine for some acquaintances or even friends, but no normal person is going to cut their close family out of their life because they didn't switch to Signal. Nor does this even begin to take into account people who live in countries where Facebook or WhatsApp are the internet to the average person. Making an individualistic moral stand is nice and all, but to the majority it isn't a realistic solution, Facebook is too in-baked to society and how it functions. Thus the solution needs to be regulatory/political.

Yes, it's exactly like saying that.

Your sarcasm is misplaced; once people adapt to a benefit, many understandably don't wish to forgo it, and leveraging such network effects is the core business model of social media.

As for who the comment was directed at, it was so broad as to be inclusive of all users, because it didn't qualify its suggestion at all; that's why it's trite. You're just making a 'not true Scotsmen' argument.