Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

As to the real life consequences of a laissez-faire approach to privacy:

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-p...

(Edited to combine my two comments)

Which I why I firmly believe in Nessie and Big Foot.

Nobody claimed it was. But GP's point is that he doesn't understand the hysterical responses to an absence of evidence, and doesn't see why he should change his behavior in the absence of evidence.

Don't get me wrong: I think Facebook is a fundamentally culturally rotten company, and probably disagree with him more than I agree with him. But non sequitur buzzwords like your comment are neither here nor there.

You'll get ads better suited to you. The horror!

> You'll get ads better suited to you. The horror!

Plus all kinds of bonus disinformation based on the profile your data has provided!

The vast majority of disinformation is from organic posts, not ads, and don't benefit from tracking.

"Organic" posts can have their ranking boost by money... Essentially, there are no organic posts. It is all advertising.

Somebody's already linked China's credit score shenanigans which is a good example; I'll also chime in by saying there's been actual books written how IBM (and big data of that time) was a direct factor in making the Holocaust happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust). Once when "undesirables" (like myself) can be sorted by any widespread metric ... it's too easy to be used as a weapon for more nefarious means.

This has nothing to do with FB. The government has that data from ISPs already.

Clearly it will be eaaier to figure out who are undesired individuals if one has access to everyones Facebook feed.