Unfortunately, as long as consumers can't be uniformly and universally trusted, there's but a market and a compelling, morally-acceptable use case for consumer tracking and reporting in that regard. So if what Facebook doesn't differ from consumer reporting in some other way, I don't see a compelling argument to toss it for the same reason I don't see a compelling argument to toss, say, return fraud tracking.
> Using data about a user with their consent seems perfectly fine. The fiction where this consent can be granted in perpetuity is not.
Not only that, but I think there is considerable trouble in interpreting consent when users cannot demonstrate or articulate a thorough understanding of exactly what such consent and data usage entails.
You sign up for those when you get a credit card. You don't sign up for Facebook, they just start tracking you. You don't even have to go online for it to happen. They'll do it from your friend's profiles. It's quite different.
> You sign up for those when you get a credit card
That is incorrect. Credit agencies create shadow profiles too, they call them 'thin files'. I have had to code around those situations.
Like Facebook they suck-up every scrap of data they can get from their sources. They absolutely do not throw away any of it just because you don't have a credit card ( else they'd omit half of Europe ).
... but I think you answered the relevant question, which is that you consider opt-in to having your behavior tracked (even when that behavior interacts with third parties, e.g. visiting someone's website or buying a product from someone's company) morally key. I think the CFPB document I linked above indicates that this is not a universally-accepted principle.
Using data about a user with their consent seems perfectly fine. The fiction where this consent can be granted in perpetuity is not.