averageperson

"Is there a jurisdiction where there is no legal distinction between selling data (transferring ownership) and providing access to data for a fee (licensing)?"

I thought perhaps you had a jurisdiction in mind where there is no difference.

Needless to say, in the US and in many other countries where Facebook conducts business, there is a difference.

Isn't that a principle relating to proving ownership?

If yes, then no, that is not what I meant, although I think I see what you are getting at.

What I meant was, "Is there a jurisdiction where a company cannot license (permit) access to data contigent on prior assent to an agreement with conditions on use, duration of use, transfer, etc. such that the licensee does not get the same rights as the owner of the data?"

Users own the copyright to the stuff they share with Facebook ("users' data"). Facebook acknowledges this explicitly in its Terms.

Does FB have sufficient rights to "sell" copies of users' data? Unless the owners of the data give FB permission, FB cannot sell something FB does not own.

Is there a jurisdiction that treats ownership and permission to do something as the same thing?

However, legally they are not the same thing.

(You are addressing the advertiser ecosystem while the focus here is the app ecosystem.)

The "word games" may not be aimed at the "average person". They might be intended to mislead those who have a concern with what Facebook might be doing. For example, it might be part of their job. The FTC is an obvious example, but there are many individuals and groups who are interested in Facebook's activities relating to privacy.

Incidentally, how do you know these things about the "average person"? Is there a citation to some studies you have read?