When Facebook’s ad network sells and places ads in front of a person because they are gay, pregnant, devout, or disabled, you don’t consider those to be “intimate details of their lives”?

That is a mischaracterization of what Facebook is doing.

Facebook has a giant ontology of subjects. Based on their "stalking" of you, subjects in this ontology are connected to the user profile; i.e., the FB user's "interests".

Ad buyers are buying access to the ontology, not the individual users. They're not given a list of users to sift through and choose the user. They choose the subjects and FB's ad network shows the ad to users with matching interests. For what it's worth there's at least a buffer there.

You may still find this wrong, but the idea that they're providing "intimate details of their lives" oversells the argument against FB.

BTW: you have to at least give FB credit for giving users access to the interests that are tied to their profiles. I periodically sweep through them so that I show 0 interests and subsequently never get any ads. Ad buyers are looking to target people; if you're not in the target audience you wont be shown an ad.

because facebook meticulously tracks and categorizes us (the ontology), it’s possible to extricate personal data from facebook based simply on the ads you’re served. so fb still leaks data about you (to advertisers, researchers, governments, etc.) even if they don’t literally let people download the personal data. then there’s also the issue that the government can compel arbitrary disclosures secretly and without recourse.

> you don’t consider those to be “intimate details of their lives”?

I consider all of those to be intimate details of their lives. I cannot purchase that information from Facebook.

What makes this more confusing and frustrating is that there are companies that do sell user data to Facebook. Not in the handwave-y, roundabout way people that OP describes, but in the standard "I give you $$$, you give me transaction data" way.

Can you explain what you believe the other 3/4 of the truth is?

As far as I know, FB makes money by selling political and religious affiliation, location, age, gender, etc. to advertisers in the form of target markets. I consider most of those to be intimate details of my life.

That's why it's a 3/4 truth. They don't offer "pay us to see John Doe's religious affiliation", instead they offer "show your ad to Catholics". It's more similar to a Catholic TV station selling commercial slots. That said, it can be far more targeted and powerful than a TV commercial, e.g. "show your ad to 18 year old Catholics with post-secondary education in Flint, Michigan".

Thanks for replying and not simply downvoting and moving on. I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play.

Although, with just a few of those variables (age/gender/poltiics/religion/geography) you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable. I recall a few years ago a report along these lines (identifying people through FB's extremely granular targeting) in either Ars or a similar publication. Somewhat analogous would be the IMDB de-anonymization paper. And in these cases, the line is a lot more blurred. All that said, I'm not sure if FB has backed off on the available granularity that allowed such narrow target markets.

Not to mention, if FB can target the market they obviously know each person in the market -- even when not directly giving that information to marketers, I think it's still part of the conversation.

You say it's nuance, I say it's a completely different situation and people either are ignorant or are purposely lying to push a narrative.

#1 If Facebook sold raw personal data to whoever came with a checkbook, I'd be pissed. Beyond pissed. The whole Cambridge Analytica thing was the closest they got, and it was really an issue with friends of mine giving away my personal information through FB. FB fixed this issue.

#2 If Facebook sells access to me via ads based on my personal data, then whatever. I don't really care. I gave FB my personal data. As long as they keep it to themselves them it's fine.

Using the term "selling your data" triggers #1 in the vast majority of the population, stirring people up.

> I can see what you (or the parent) was getting at and somewhat agree that it's not a "full" truth, and there is some nuance at play.

The nuance is important, consider the statements:

1. DSA Direct sells data it has collected on you to Facebook.

2. Facebook sells data it has collected on you to advertisers.

These two statements appear to be the same but they are describing different things. The first statement describes the sale of data in a sense that a non-technical person would understand: Facebook gives DSA Direct money, and DSA Direct gives them data on individuals.

The second statement is deliberately crafted to look like the first (so as the ignite the same emotions) but describes something completely different. DSA Direct cannot buy data from Facebook. I cannot buy data from Facebook. People will go to great lengths (eg. "If I target a single person with ads, I can probe their information gradually") to equate the two, but they are not the same.

> you can likely narrow down your target audience to a few tens of people, making those people identifiable

Perhaps, but that's a very different scenario that what most people think of when others say "FB profits from selling your info".

It is not misleading to say that facebook is stalking even non-users and collecting intimate details of people’s lives. Facebook is violating people’s privacy rights.

Then say that. Let's get away from "Facebook sells user data".

These are not equivalent statements.