Hate to break it to you, but he's not really your friend. You would have known about it directly or through someone else if so. Facebook is for finding out about events / people who aren't close to you, but you're still interested in. That's its value.
That's plain lazy thinking, it's completely giving up on your privacy-aware friends because Zuckerberg makes doing that so so easy. What a surprise.
We all choose our own battles and our own hills to die on.
And deep down, I suspect many of us (or at the very least "me") choose those battles and hills for not entirely rational or "for the greater good" reasons.
Having said that, if your battle is feminism you don't remain engaged with and support "locker room talk". If your battle is veganism you don't remain engaged with groups of butchers or hunters. One of my battles is privacy - I'm not going to support or enable surveillance capitalism, even though I know the social cost I'll incur there.
There's an unkind stereotype about vegans "Hoe do you know if someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you..." - but that reveals an admirable trait shared by "them" collectively, if you aren't speaking out for what you believe in - you're enabling and maintaining things which you do not believe in.
In a world with email, SMS, and iMessage I do not fear being left out by my true friends.
Precisely this. A type of thinking which includes Facebook being a persons only means of communication is very simplistic. While there are some unusual user cases -- such as my coworker who had to use wi-fi for Messenger -- and they pop up in certain circumstances, I do not think this is as widespread as some make it out to be. To explain my standing, it comes from my observation of hearing people say using Messenger is "easier" and they're able to stay in contact with people they may not want to on a more personal level (i.e. SMS, voice calls) or they are international.
That's one use case, I don't think it's the only one though.