> If you have personal information you do not wish bad actors to see, do not publish it using an open protocol explicitly designed to allow anyone to read said information.
you seem to not even have read the first paragraph, or not understood what it imples
the whole point of this article is that meta has a precendence of aggregating and combining data from all kind of sources. This includes data which is not supposed to be public, but e.g. was sold without your knowledge, awareness or explicit consent. A situation you could argue the huge majority of people on the internet is in.
For example consider this hypothetical scenario:
So they might take the supposed to be public data of e.g. your anonymous political activism (lets say anti corruption in a very corrupt country).
Then take a public profile you created e.g. in your teens, which you never linked or used the same email address with as you politic profile and should have no connection at all (you acted carefully).
But then meta is like, oh see through the data we bought/own we know that that profile was using that (non public) email address and through other data we brought we know that that email is belived to be owned by the same person as that other email (e.g. you used is for forwarding or account recovery, also non public) so we conclude they are the same and publish *to the whole world trivially accessible that the anonymous political activists is you*.
Or another scenario: They used AI body/face recognition to make the link even through you never posted the face in you anonymous account without appropriate masking or at all.
Or another scenario: Metadata of locations leaked through the usage of social media created the link.
Or another scenario: Someone marks you on a image they took without your consent (and/or knowledge), doesn't matter if they later delete it or make it only visible to their frinds followers.
Or in other words as long as you don't live as a complete hermit and have far above average tech knowledge and also treat absurdly careful to a point where it causing major annoyance in your life stuff like that can totally happen to you.
This is why the GDPR was created to make it illegal to aggregate information about third parties without their consent in surprising ways. But it's also where it failed the hardest to archive it's goals you could say (but thats a different discussion altogether).
you seem to not even have read the first paragraph, or not understood what it imples
the whole point of this article is that meta has a precendence of aggregating and combining data from all kind of sources. This includes data which is not supposed to be public, but e.g. was sold without your knowledge, awareness or explicit consent. A situation you could argue the huge majority of people on the internet is in.
For example consider this hypothetical scenario:
So they might take the supposed to be public data of e.g. your anonymous political activism (lets say anti corruption in a very corrupt country).
Then take a public profile you created e.g. in your teens, which you never linked or used the same email address with as you politic profile and should have no connection at all (you acted carefully).
But then meta is like, oh see through the data we bought/own we know that that profile was using that (non public) email address and through other data we brought we know that that email is belived to be owned by the same person as that other email (e.g. you used is for forwarding or account recovery, also non public) so we conclude they are the same and publish *to the whole world trivially accessible that the anonymous political activists is you*.
Or another scenario: They used AI body/face recognition to make the link even through you never posted the face in you anonymous account without appropriate masking or at all.
Or another scenario: Metadata of locations leaked through the usage of social media created the link.
Or another scenario: Someone marks you on a image they took without your consent (and/or knowledge), doesn't matter if they later delete it or make it only visible to their frinds followers.
Or in other words as long as you don't live as a complete hermit and have far above average tech knowledge and also treat absurdly careful to a point where it causing major annoyance in your life stuff like that can totally happen to you.
This is why the GDPR was created to make it illegal to aggregate information about third parties without their consent in surprising ways. But it's also where it failed the hardest to archive it's goals you could say (but thats a different discussion altogether).