What you fail to understand is that the average layman doesn't care about data collection and ad tech. If it pisses you off that people don't care about the same things you do, welcome to politics.
Google is particularly fascinating, their employees protest when their parent company want to be a supplier to the US military, but apparently they have no moral objection to building detailed profiles on users (and non-users) in order to sell them more junk that they don't need and can't afford.
The whole data collection thing is so abstract that the same people who don't want their employer to kill people with drone can't see the immorality of invading people privacy. If that's the case, then how can we expect the layman to understand or care?
True. But Facebook has managed—by demonstrating a repeated recklessness, unwillingness to reform and immortality that seems fundamental to its culture—to energise a vocal minority in a way no other tech company has. This vocal minority, moreover, is wealthy, politically connected and bipartisan.
This is already resulting in costs and reduced strategic flexibility for Facebook’s senior leadership. I expect it to turn into an existential threat for the company, as it’s currently organised, in the coming years.
How many people would be comfortable if you laid out the full spectrum of what is possible with the data that is collected, and how said data is distributed and sold?
Its frankly a massively dishonest claim that people "don't care so its all fine".
My experience is that most people are surprised and mildly horrified that Facebook has most of their browsing history.
All those new accounts accusing critics of hating Facebook are really rather ineffective.