I don't understand how this surprises anyone. You choose to give them your data. It's not free. If you don't want them to have your data, don't give it away.
While I've no sympathy for mishandling private user data as Meta has of course been guilty of in the past, I think users getting 16 years of free service in exchange for their public posts being used in this fashion is not that bad of a deal.
People got 'free service' in exchange for putting ads around content not for this.
It's a terrible deal no one asked the users if they want to agree to.
It's visiting a website and saving an image and claiming the website owes you for storage.
The "facebook is not useful for me so I don't get it" needs to die seriously
Llama is embedded for free in a ton of Meta products right now:
https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi...
> "A better assistant: Thanks to our latest advances with Meta Llama 3, we believe Meta AI is now the most intelligent AI assistant you can use for free"
Want to just use it in a browser?
The real question is whether the agreement that was made between them and their users during 2007-now covered uses like training AI, but most likely it was a very broad "we can use your data how we want" type of statement and that agreement wasn't fought (or fought hard enough?) back then.
Every single user of Facebook was asked and agreed to it. [0]
This was not unexpected. Anyone who read the ToS of most large tech companies in the past 10 years, and gave it more than a few seconds thought, would have realized that they were giving them access to use the data however they want - a fact many of us have been warning people about for many years.
LLMs have also been an expected evolution of technology for many years. Nobody should have been surprised about this.