I think he means indirectly sell, which is kinda true. By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data. Not what they really wanted to do, but their reckless policies and vague morality standard caused that.
Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches. And they do not care about this fundamental issue, they just want more users and more profit.
> By letting the CA scandal happen, they seriously sold a lot of data.
The CA scandal did not involve any sale between CA and Facebook. CA sold insights gleaned from data pulled from Facebook's public and free-of-charge Graph API.
> Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches.
I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Arguing that Facebook is a bad company does not make misinformation more correct.
It's relevant because we're discussing a Facebook employee that wants to screen hires for integrity. Given widely known scientific evidence that FB causes anxiety and lowers self-esteem, which is a direct consequence of its core business model: integrity is already in question when you accept the interview.
I feel like these are weasel words, and I could use the same argument about anything. I could say Clinton let the email scandal happen. Or that Clinton indirectly leaked classified emails, which is kinda true. Or someone can say Clinton is clearly harmful to society in important ways, according to various sources. Clinton just wants more votes and power. I think we should stick with the facts to make a strong argument against Facebook.
Also, nothing changes the fact that Facebook is clearly harmful to the society in important ways, according to various researches. And they do not care about this fundamental issue, they just want more users and more profit.