Users are given the choice to accept risks that are buried on page 7 of privacy policies only a lawyer could understand the tricks in.
Services knowingly endangering unknowing users for money should be like cigarettes and be forced to say on the signup page in big bold text they can and will sell user data to anyone, including law enforcement.
Users largely think free services are like public libraries and do not default to expecting they are being exploited for money. Element, Wikipedia, and duckduckgo exist for free without selling user data so it is not a given that exploitation is always present in free services.
This isn't a consumer choice issue. People love morphine too, it doesn't mean Amazon can sell it to them. If Apple enforced its own rules in this case, Facebook would just have to act like any other developer and find some revenue streams that comply with established privacy norms.
Yes, top reason an average enterprise developer has to deal with a distributed mess as opposed to a more manageable monolithic one: "we will do microservices despite being nothing like Netflix". On the upside, more developers are now required.
Some engineers see themselves as merely tools, so they "sharpen" themselves to be used effectively. Why would MAANAM (FAANG is a bit outdated) want more creative ones? They will get bored and leave.
