This argument is illogical, because Facebook forces everyone to sign its ToS to use its services, while nobody forces a Facebook employee to leak internal stuff. Said another way, whether or not I wish to have control over my FB data, FB coerces me to agree that it can do whatever it wants with my data. Its not exactly opt-in, is it? Its far worse, of course, if you consider shadow profiles, because it is even coercing people who didn't even explicitly sign up to the ToS. Unless the leak happened via some kind of coercion (which doesn't seem to be the case), your comment is incorrect.
>> In a less spiteful world, some of the employees' reactions might have been taken as evidence that they do understand and care about issues of privacy or containment.
What? You mean you care about something, but you just won't do something about it, nor openly tell anyone why you wouldn't do something about it, or even talk about it before the issue blows up? Yep, totally convincing.
>> Maybe that would lead to more collaboration on solutions,
Why do people need to "collaborate" on solutions? What do they get from it? Is Facebook going to pay people a share of the profits? If Facebook is a corporate entity which serves its self-interest against people's self-interest (which they have clearly been doing for a long time), what kind of idiot would suggest the people whose self-interest has been affected should now "come to the table" so "we can all work something out"?
>> which is necessary because there are actually some tricky tradeoffs here.
The only tricky tradeoff here is: should Mark Zuckerberg be the only one who should go to jail, or should the entire company be rounded up? It is quite tricky, I do agree.
>> But that doesn't give the same dopamine hit as cutting down the tall poppies, right?
I don't know about tall poppies, but "culling" the "weeds" is the only way to have a healthy garden.