Since there's no real life downside to FB using your data to show you more relevant ads, people are making the rational trade-off. Privacy issues with FB are ideology based in nature.
So to claim that there is no downside to targeted marketing is simply false. We have very little understanding what sort of effects it has on consumers, and as far as we know they're not all good.
There is no reason to believe any deliberation on part of consumers here is rational. The relationship between self harm and social media usage in adolescents are well documented as well.
So it is quite ironic to assert that being concerned about facebook's behaviour is 'ideological', when in fact advocates seem to willfully ignore evidence that suggests that we're playing dice with people's psychology here.
[1]https://hbr.org/2016/04/targeted-ads-dont-just-make-you-more...
If social media makes you unhappy just stop using it.
This answer is far too simplistic for the reality of the situation.
For example, what of the people who never used it (or did stop using it) and their correlated shadow profiles?[0] What is the supposed answer, then: Don't give your contact information to your friends? Don't use the internet, at all, because of Facebook Pixel?[1]
...but the bulk-share of the problem, for me specifically, is that treasure-troves of information on people are the ripest targets for either exploit or out-right theft. See the OPM hack[2] for a principle example of such theft and then look at the Snowden leaks, where he shows that <insert three-lettered agency here> was in major tech companies' bases, killing their do0dz.[3]
The potential problems (and their requisite solutions) aren't as simple as you're trying to paint them to be.
To summarise this long diatribe: I don't pretend to have an answer, to be sure, but to say that stopping Facebook usage is sufficient is disingenuous to the realities of what the company does; especially, since data about you is still being collected anyway.
[0] - https://www.cnet.com/news/shadow-profiles-facebook-has-infor...
[1] - https://www.oberlo.com/blog/facebook-pixel
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
[3] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-...
Why do I say the study was dubious? They showed a small number of undergraduates a luxury watch ad and told them it was being shown to them based on their behavior. Those participants then rated themselves more sophisticated. Of course if someone frames it like that they would say they were sophisticated. What is the negative there?
Most people using FB aren't thinking that though, they're just silently ignoring the ads on the side of the content they actually want.
An altered self image as the result of merely staring at a luxury watch advertisement is more than a little conncering. If psychological self assessment changes even in the context of a small study, what do hours of this stuff per day do to the human brain?
the precautionary principle implies that we don't run an unsupervised experiment on the psyche of two billion people on the planet which primarily serves the purpose of distributing money to facebook.
What now?
Large detrimental downstream effects and people's perceptions and trends all happen on timescales on the order of magnitude of a decade. Give it a few years.
How about subtle data-directed lobbying to cause subtle data-directed changes to the educational system to create subtle data-directed vulnerabilities to manipulation in adulthood?
There are plenty of examples in the real world, throughout history. It is going to get a whole lot worse, and it has the potential to never get better.
IMO the core reason people keep using this shady service is that they've just never been exposed to the truth.