Sure, all I see is that insurance companies will be the ones with the most to gain (economically) from this information, and thus the ones that will pay the most for it.

Insurance companies already have tons of relevant medical data on their clients, there's no reason why whatever FB can provide them is going to be miraculously more telling than actual medical data such as their current and past diagnoses and medical conditions.

Insurance companies are perhaps surprisingly often ignorant about their own medical data and what it means for their clients or patients (except for what it means in terms of revenue). Entire profitable businesses (who aren't insurers) sell analytics products based on these data to companies because insurers don't have the means or know how to.

> Insurance companies are perhaps surprisingly often ignorant about their own medical data and what it means for their clients or patients (except for what it means in terms of revenue).

You may very well be correct, but how do you know that?

> because insurers don't have the means or know how to.

Again, where do you get your insight on the inner-workings of insurance companies in general from?

I'm not disagreeing with you outright. I just wondering if you're guessing or you have actual knowledge to the one or more health insurance companies and their actuarial and analytics processes.

It could be useful additional data for detecting insurance fraud.

Yes, I'm sure Facebook's goals are entirely altruistic just as they were when they performed psychological experiments on hundreds of thousands of people without consent.

Why are we still giving this company the benefit of the doubt after years of blatant abuse?

Advertising corporations shouldn't be anywhere near my medical records, period.

Although I agree that it’s a non issue, it is a big deal to identify patients against their permission. It’s also illegal.