> Last I checked it needs a valid email address, name, and password.

And your social graph. You implicitly give it information about all your interactions and connections - and allow it to record even interactions you aren't aware of (like other FB users looking you up or checking your profile without interacting with you in ways you find out about). You're also opting in to web-wide surveillance, where FB track you individually across every webpage with Facebook social widget on it (unless you take steps to manage your browser's FB login status - and most likely even if you do log out whenever you're done with FB by using "industry standard" ad network browser fingerprinting...)

> Last I checked it needs a valid email address, name, and password.

I’ve had friends have to submit government ID to prove that they were using their real name.

Why is wyager getting down voted? This is not uncommon given that people with certain types of last names (e.g. Yellow Horse) are targeted and then need to prove who they are. I cannot confidently say they don't keep the id given the whole phone call revelations of the last week.

It also requires that you allow it to then track you all over the internet, associate that activity with your name and email and social graph, and then sell it to advertisers allowing them to target your activity and your friends elsewhere on the web.

Exactly this. My girlfriend uses the same reasoning to downplay the level of tracking Facebook can do on her. 'Yes I use Facebook, but I don't put any personal information on it, and I have everything set to private'.

The problem is, that after you sign up and enter only your e-mail address, Facebook will fill in all the blanks for you, without needing any interaction from your side...

I'm not a fan of Facebook, use it, also happen to be cutting back. You are correct at the minimal set of interactions necessary to be on there. Honestly, the post mentioned sounded more like whining and an excuse for personal lapses -- "don't contact close friends for an extended period of time". If the writer had put a bit more energy into maintaining offline relationships, maybe he would have heard about both events prior to them happening.

edit: cleaning up the grammar