Using AI to weed out people most susceptible to manipulation via ads doesn't really seem to be something that falls under "good & moral" category.
Targeted advertising that employs manipulative or otherwise dishonest methods is damaging to Capitalism and free markets.
1) The people themselves don't know how easily they are manipulated.
2) Facebook analyses this about them, and helps other businesses to use this against them.
3) They do not know Facebook helps other businesses to use this against them.
That's problematic. At the very least, #3 should be solved ie. they should be informed beforehand because then at the very least they're informed about the malpractices. You can then make a case about it being allowed, or not. But you cannot make any informed case if you don't even know it is occurring.
No one is forced to use FB as far as I know.
It really depends on scale and proportions. In this case the exact boundary when something becomes recognized as evil doesn't really exist. The more efficient you will become on finding out weaknesses of other humans and using them, the more people will consider your actions to be evil. Displaying a picture of happy family drinking coke won't shock anybody, but suggesting discount on alcohol to alcoholic might come as wrong to many people.
> No one is forced to use FB as far as I know.
With facebook actively scraping phones for contacts, calls and messages, embedding widgets on third party sites and what-not. in a way we all really are forced to be facebook users.
This is one of my biggest concerns. Facebook has shadow profiles on people that aren't users, including my kids. It's gross.
There is increasing pressure to use Facebook in order to fit in and be included in things. For example many people are contacting only through facebook and ignoring other channels.
If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill as it's unreasonable for most to choose the die option.
>If I put a gun to your head and ask you nicely to take the pill or die, I'm essentially forcing you to take the pill
One of these things is not at all like the other.
Let's look at the 70s, 80s, and possibly even the 90s. During these periods it was acceptable for most people to not know how to type, as usage of typewriters and keyboards were limited. But as society more and more adopted—and then relied on—computers and keyboard, it became increasing a necessity to be able to type. Back then you could get a job without typing skills, these days, it would be increasingly difficult to do so and you'd definitely be hampered by your inability to operate a computer. If you can't find a job, you'd be an outcast, and thus society has now developed a reliance on being able to type and use a keyboard (and thus a computer).
As with Facebook, if society continues to rely on it for social engagements and developing connections with people, it will soon become a necessity to use facebook in order to participate socially or keep in touch with people. That's the trend at least. The difference with Facebook however is that it relegates a big part of society to a single company, and cedes control of social interaction to a black box of software and algorithms.
So the slow progress of Facebook towards necessity is thus like the slow physical progression of my gun to your head: they're both making something become a necessity by limiting your options, whether it's taking a mysterious pill in my hand or becoming a social outcast.