That doesn't actually negate my point. I don't actually have a Facebook account, but their big data does provide some value to some people. The question of it being worth the overall harm is a different question altogether.

Like it or not, it provides value to some. Which is, coincidentally, about the nicest thing I've ever said about them. Please don't make me defend them again, I feel dirty.

> Like it or not, it provides value to some.

I don't think that ntsplnkv2 disputed that. He points out that benefits should not be considered in isolation, and instead argues for a cost-benefit analysis.

And my response was to the claim that their large data set created no value to users. Thus, it remains the point.

We can probably all agree that they are sinister bastards who don't have your interests in mind. That's not really up for debate.

Alas, they do create value. Seriously, stop making me defend Facebook! LOL

This happened before facebook as well; it just wasn't so... public.

How many of those relationships only survived before due to lies? They could simply be lies of omission, never really saying to family and friends that their opinions are bonkers. In some sense this is at least more honest. Whether that is better overall could be argued either way I think.

In some sense those relationships were fake. How can you call someone a friend if you aren't willing to have a discussion, even argument, with them and respect them afterwards?

Personally I don't discuss politics or religion with most of my family. I know that my views are in strong opposition to theirs. Things may be more harmonious this way, but it does mean that no one challenges anyone's ideas.

Move fast and break social ties.