There are numerous obvious differences involved that make comparison between user tracking and hired murder absurd. The reductio merely pointed out that the defence, that the victims are not the customer, does not excuse what is being done. This is laughably obvious in the case of hired killers and comparable in the case of user tracking. Any other similarities were not implied.
Also, I largely question the ability of a large part of the user base to give informed consent on the case. The extent and implications of the user tracking done by Facebook (and other parties) are byzantine and difficult to grasp for me, a nerd with interest in privacy issues. I do not expect the general public to have a deeper understanding. Even then, Facebook has been known to track people without user accounts. That doesn't count as willing participants as far as I'm concerned.
>On this you will find a reasonable split between those who agree and those who don't. It is not obvious that it is unethical.
I will and it is not. I hold an opinion shared by many, but I am under no delusion that it's uncontroversial.
There should be a Latin phrase for absurd analogies. The obvious difference between your scenario and the Facebook one is that the victim is an unwilling participant.
>Facebook is not non-evil for collecting user data to target their customers' ads. I think the entire foundation for their business is unethical.
On this you will find a reasonable split between those who agree and those who don't. It is not obvious that it is unethical.
Personally, I have no problem with them using the data to serve targeted ads. If I were to broaden it out, I do have ethical concerns about merely collecting that much data on a person and saving it. But my concerns are for use cases much worse than advertising.