there are many problems with this article. let us begin to unravel them.

problem one is claiming that this article is "the facts". it is not the facts. it is a PR piece.

the subtitle of the article is "We need your information for operation and security, but you control whether we use it for advertising."

but that isn't factual. you don't need my information. you need some people's information to make money. those people don't get to control how you make that money.

>Recently I’ve heard many questions about our business model, so I want to explain the principles of how we operate. I believe everyone should have a voice and be able to connect. If we’re committed to serving everyone, then we need a service that is affordable to everyone. The best way to do that is to offer services for free, which ads enable us to do.

he starts by saying "business model" then starts mentioning non sequitors. he doesn't want to talk about the business model at all because it will make him look bad. he is intentionally conflating his product -- people -- with his customers -- advertisers.

>People consistently tell us that if they’re going to see ads, they want them to be relevant.

no. nobody says this. nobody tells you this. nobody wants to see ads, ever. especially not ads which are derived from spying on their most intimate activities.

>That means we need to understand their interests

no. this is not factual. you need to understand their buying habits. furthermore, this is still not a discussion of FB's business model.

>The internet also allows far greater transparency and control over what ads you see than TV, radio or print

once again, this is a non-sequitor. furthermore, "allows" is a lie by omission. the technological capacity is there. but it is not exercised. and "transparency" does not equal control. and let's be honest: nobody has any control over what ads companies try to serve them with via e-stalking.

>On Facebook, you have control over what information we use to show you ads, and you can block any advertiser from reaching you. You can find out why you’re seeing an ad and change your preferences to get ads you’re interested in

a non sequitor, again. they harvest the information either way. blocking the advertiser does not block them from harvesting your info or finding another way to monetize it. the user's preferences regarding seeings ads are irrelevant because their preference is to never see an ad, which is not an allowed action for them to take because they do not have any control.

>Still, some are concerned about the complexity of this model.

no, incorrect, wrong. nobody is concerned about the complexity. people are concerned about the way facebook invades their privacy. a bad faith argument by zuck, to be sure.

>This model can feel opaque, and we’re all distrustful of systems we don’t understand.

no, incorrect, again a complete whiff of an answer. people are distrustful of companies who have an incentive to exploit them. everyone understands FB does not have their interests at heart, there is no ambiguity.

>For example, we don’t sell people’s data, even though it’s often reported that we do

perhaps the biggest factual inaccuracy in the article; truly this is a titanic lie which nobody can even hope to unpack. suffice it to say we shouldn't even give his misrepresentation any consideration.

>In fact, selling people’s information to advertisers would be counter to our business interests, because it would reduce the unique value of our service to advertisers.

again, a massive misrepresentation which is intentionally deceptive.

>I’m often asked if we have an incentive to increase engagement on Facebook because that creates more advertising real estate, even if it’s not in people’s best interests.

i think we all know enough about the addiction economy to laugh at this statement.

>And when we asked people for permission to use this information to improve their ads as part of our compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, the vast majority agreed because they prefer more relevant ads.

implying that the users even understood what they were being asked to agree to is a hilarious mistake of something to say.

the rest is similarly bad.

it will be a joy to see facebook torn to shreds by regulators and abandoned by users. it is long overdue.