Facebook doesn't give a shit about its users. And for that I don't blame them. They're fighters. When they went public, so many assumed they were dead for lacking a mobile presence. Time and again, they've been called out as moribund and time and again they've won. That takes--and develops--thick skin.
That thick skin is now a hard head obstructing their view of the truth. When they drop the ball, it is never their fault. Someone is mis-defining a term, users aren't reading fine print, lawmakers are being mean, et cetera. The onus is put on us, the public, to determine how our rights can be balanced with their business model. As if their business is a given.
If Facebook were liable for repeatedly losing our data, for repeatedly refusing to tell users what it does with what they give them, for constantly lying about what it's doing and going to do, this would stop. Or Facebook would stop.
Neither users nor advertisers can unilaterally disengage. Not in meaningful numbers. Facebook is too powerful. The only solution is for it to be broken up.
Should Facebook be 100% held responsible to the law? Of course.
Should some laws be updated/created to help fill gaps where we might need more privacy? Possibly.
Should Facebook be held to some nebulous moral standard of what some people want but don't have the will power or public support to codify into law? Absolutely not.
Too powerful? If people actually cared more about privacy, then either the law would get changed (which is happening in some places), or Facebook would lose market share and be forced to make changes from market forces alone. No need for governments to arbitrarily pick winners and losers.
Facebook Ireland Ltd. Does.
> Pick one or the other why not both?
"Market failure is a situation in which the allocation of goods and services is not efficient" [1]. They are known failure modes that free markets suffer, and must be defended, from. Laissez-faire doesn't work.