Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
An academic from Cambridge made an app on the FB platform. That gave him access to data which he then sold for commercial purposes. When FB found out, they sent a legal notice to delete this data and cease using it.
Like gdpr on steroids? I think this would ruin a lot of companies and make a lot of really interesting and useful services no longer possible... but I'm rather curious what it would really mean. I've never seen it proposed by someone who actually recognized what it would mean, though.
At the very least, there's been no societal consensus that we want the trade-offs that come from allowing every click, view, email, and contact to be scanned and used for profit in whatever ways companies want. It happened by pure assertion: the companies just did it and did all they could to avoid even letting people actually know so they wouldn't have to ask.
Maybe we overall would rather lose all the benefits in order to block the harms and dangers.
I'd much rather have the status quo (and stronger) around privacy regulations for medical records than live in a world without that but then be one of a few people who forgo use of common medical facilitaties over personal privacy objections.
That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts.
Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not how they make money and is not a core part of the product.
It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
I think this group, amongst all others that I interact with, is critical enough to call a bad faith argument a bad faith argument. However, I think all of us need better training/practice on how to identify bad faith arguments. I see the turn that has been occurring on HN against Elon as one example of that. It may take time but it happens. Compared to other spaces on this here Cyberspace - higher quality and higher s/n ration on argumentation is what keeps me coming back to HN. When people disagree with me here, I actually learn something.
Added: My twitter account got blocked because it spent most of it's time autoreplying to people about how the freakonomics podcast became an advertising pitch for the Koch brothers. I only use facebook because my mother prefers it to text. I can't stomach reddit having known the founders as people. My HN account really only exists because someone said a nice thing about a talk I gave - which drew me out of the shadows. I like it here, can I stay? I'll even wear a north face fleece. I drive an EV I promise.
I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sole network. A lot of people on here (HN) and elsewhere have been repeating those sentiments for years. As naive as it sounds, I simply wish Facebook was not so focused on building its ad platform but rather took on a more custodial role (albeit much less profitable).