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).