And I believe that you believe that argument. I believe even that Zuckerberg believes it. Very rarely is there a Gargamoyle sitting in a tower plotting the downfall of the smurfs. Most times it's just someone with the best of intentions.

In this case your argument is that you just want the information so as to provide people what they want.

Okay - fair enough. But there is a very obvious counter-argument - which has already been mentioned many times. It's that you don't make it easy for people to choose not to allow you to track this information if they don't want you to. And you KNOW that most people wouldn't opt-in to let you track them this way. So at best you make it opt-out - if you let people opt out at all. So - assuming that people know what they are doing and are making a rational decision about their choices, then you aren't ACTUALLY serving their desires at all.

And next comes the only real reply that's available to you. Either people are irrational for wanting to block information gathering that would help you satisfy their first order desires, or that facts like people keep using the service without trying to figure out how to opt-out, shows that they really don't have a problem with privacy issues - even if they state they do. And therein lies the paternalist rub of Facebook's decisions.

Now - you don't state anything directly paternalistic in your reply. To be honest - it's not that consistently thought through. But the germ of it is there when you state to the effect that - people can't understand what we do or why we do it. And thus you relegate them as other - as less informed, or less capable of choosing than the mighty facebook crew.

Sorry you need to try harder to see this from the other point of view. That's not going to be easy for you - because working at facebook must be an incredible experience. Who wouldn't want it to be a ethical easy zone. But you exhibit the clearest signs of someone who has too much of a vested interest to be able to critical engage with this ethical conundrum.

The first of these signs is the fact that you don't address the very obvious counter argument I just laid out. No one at Facebook ever seems to. It's such an obvious reply, and is mentioned so often - it appears disingenuous to continue to ignore it. I don't believe that Facebook consciously avoid replying to it. But the fact that they don't - while keeping the assumption that they mean well - suggests to me that their vested interest has clouded their judgement.

The second such sign of critical impairment is the fact that you are marginalising your opponents as "tin foil hat" people - or as ignorants who couldn't possibly understand. When you do this to a group of people who represent a particular point of view opposed to your own - you've ceased to engage with them - you've ceased to listen.

And that's exactly why people have their backs up. And if you can't see the intuitive force behind that - then people are going to start treating you in kind and start marginalising you in return. And of those who do subscribe to the tin foil hat view - that's exactly why they do.

It's a shame because Facebook probably has a lot to contribute. But if your PR folks (including yourself since you've just spoken for the company on HN) can't recognise the degree to which the discourse is becoming poisoned in this way - then things aren't going to go to well for you in the longer term.