The issues with your position is: - Basically no one reads the terms they are “agreeing” to. This breaks the legal and logical principle that you can’t agree to something when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to. - The agreement is basically forced. Either you agree or you can’t use the website. Sure that’s fine if you can use another website. However, for example with Facebook marketplace there is no realistic alternative in many places. Where I live our craigslist equivalent was all but killed by fb marketplace. Same for organisation of events. Also if almost every website has the same invasive policies then you don’t really have a choice but to agree. No choice once again breaks one of the fundamental principles of an agreement. - The language used in those agreements are difficult for normal people to read and understand. This both discourages them from reading it and again, you can’t agree to something if you don’t understand what you’re agreeing to.

I’m not saying legally fb is in the wrong. Clearly the legal system as it is today doesn’t care whether you understand what you are agreeing to. I’m saying they are acting unethically, and that their behaviour is a scourge on society.