Seriously, the only people FB is fooling are the fools who use it. While those people exist (and they always have throughout history), FB or some sort of FB (social network) will exist. The problem is, like the author, people know that they don't want to be part of FB and yet they still are. Yes, it's an addiction, but it's an addiction that can be defeated. And you don't even have to do 12 steps. It's just one step and two weeks of waiting to delete your account.
The excuses form people who claim to hate FB but still use it are getting quite old by now. If you really want to make a point, cancel your FB account and then write this. It'll resonate a lot more.
Because zuck once said that about anyone who trusts him?
 Zuckerberg's IM: People Who Trust Him Are "Dumb F*ks"
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
In my case and in Zuckerberg's the comment was made in private and never meant to be heard by the public. I think using this quote against him is a cheap shot and a total copout to avoid answering the parent's question in any real way. If everyone's private comments were held against them then every person on earth would be vilified. I'm no fan of Facebook but I am a realist and when you try to use that quote against him you come off as blindly anti-Zuck/Facebook.
So to rephrase the question, why do you think Facebook users are fools? And if the answer is "because mark said so" then I'm sure I can find Zuckerberg being extra complimentary of Facebook users and then I'd ask "so which quote do we go with? The one that suits your belief or would you prefer to come up with your own reason?"
Clearly, this is a view that some people hold, and that is evidenced based. That evidence is quite damning when considered <in context> both at the time--he's offering to distribute private, personally identifiable information without consent--and in the larger, later context of FB's evolution, and subsequent business decisions. It is not a "cheap shot and total copout". On the contrary, it is dead on point. As such, it seems a leigitimate position. Playing devils advocate, is also one that at least needs to be argued against rather than wished away.
If you have evidence or logic to argue against it, and that is a position you believe, then feel free to put it forward. On the other hand, putting forth your own foible is not overly persuasive. That seems, to the contrary, to have been a mere expression of incredulity.
 The analyst is short facebook, obviously. (And per her disclosure at the end of the linked citation).