They're selling the fact that they have the data. They're selling limited access to the data. It's just exploiting the resource to the maximum gain; if they sold the user data itself they'd be selling the crown jewels and obsolete themselves.
Ask your grand parents, non tech savvy friends, ... if they are okay with Facebook selling their data to anyone. They will object heavily!
Then ask them if they are okay with Facebook using their data to show them more relevant ads. Many will be okay with that.
Then again, ask them if they feel okay being "tracked" - guess what, nobody likes that.
What I'm trying to say is that I think theres a middle ground in targeted advertising, where there's still enough money to be made and still most people feel like they're getting a fair deal (in paying with their data).
What you've highlighted is a lack of education about what different abuses mean. There is no difference between tracking and targeted advertising as it exists today. There is no difference between selling your data and "using it to show more relevant ads" as it is today. The fact that some people mistakenly believe there are differences is tragic and the fact that a company can lie to everyone in this way is a travesty.
If my chat messages help Facebook understand my consumption preferences and if they are using that in the chat platform or somewhere else to show me an advert customized using that information gleaned about me using my private messages or browsing behavior, then absolutely they are selling data about me.
It does not matter customer is getting my data along with 500 other people and cannot identify me personally.
It does not matter if they are also selling the ad space as well. An advertising firm benefits from this kind of targeting for which they will pay premium price over competing ad spaces. The base value derived is from any eyeballs on the copy( any traditional advert) and the premium is for my eyeballs on the copy at the right time.
Generally "sell" implies that the thing being sold is transferred in some way, but that's not happening here. The data remains with Facebook.
It's like going to a restaurant and buying a meal. They didn't sell you the oven, they just used it to make your food.
Not to be pedantic, but the parent comment is making a common mistake by using the term "selling" to refer to the way that "tech" companies like Facebook/WhatsApp sell users out.
Facebook/WhatsApp does not need to "sell" data. They can honestly say they do not sell data, and that is exactly what they say in their public communications, hoping to fool readers who believe "selling user data" is the problem. (Maybe they give data away instead. Researchers, API users, and others have had signifcant access in the past. Regulating only commercial exploitation might not prohibit those transfers.)
What they do sell is access to users.
Thus what we want to regulate is not "selling" but "using".^1 (Ideally we want to regulate collection as well, but this does not account for data already collected.)
Read the press release from the HmbDfPI. There is nothing about selling, only about collecting and using.
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/assets/pdf/2021-05-11-press-r...
1. One instance where we might want to prohibit sale (or transfer) of data is in mergers and acquisitions. If, e.g, the user entrusts company A with data, then if company A goes bankrupt, company B should not be able to acquire the data without the user's express permission.