[villasv]

I agree that the most used phrasing of "selling your data" is factually wrong. On the other hand, I think it is approximately true enough for the general public.

I don't expect the usual reader to understand how that data is commoditized inside Facebook to serve better ads. Do you remember how a US Senator had a hard time understanding how ads allowed Facebook to remain free? People will not grasp without significant effort the ads economy and no journalist wants to take on that every time they write about tracking.

It's a tough situation. I'm not satisfied with how they do it, but I understand it's a limitation related to the medium and target audience.

[laurent92]

But that still means a real estate agency doesn’t have my address, and the painter doesn’t have the list of shoes I have bought.

Only being able to show me ads in some apps is a comically narrow way of way of “having sold all my data”, akin to “Thugs have sold my house” for “temporarily skinny-dipping in my swimming pool while we were on holidays”. Not nice, but they didn’t sell my house, and Facebook didn’t sell my data, just told an advertiser they could put a picture in a window where there would be house-owners passing by.

[villasv]

I don't think the analogy helps. Digital goods can be sold infinitely many times, unlike your house. Explaining the difference between selling data and selling a service enabled by that data is not as easy as it sounds. It means that a real state agency doesn't have to know your address to assess how much your property is worth - someone else is doing the math and connecting you and them.