I feel this author is basically making arguments about terminology to deflect attention away from the basic issues. He's also wrong in substance, because I've r

I feel this author is basically making arguments about terminology to deflect attention away from the basic issues. He's also wrong in substance, because I've read many many other articles about this that describe the specifics. Anyone who pays a tiny amount of attention understands they didn't hack facebook, but instead took advantage of facebook's ridiculous ability to harvest someone's friend graph and their friends, and easily develop a giant network by doing nothing more than putting out a stupid survey app. But this is still a horrible invasion of people's privacy, and it demonstrated how badly facebook treat's people's information. Will this guy next write an article titled "grindr is doing people a favor by selling heir hiv status"? Or they weren't "selling it"? In any case, it's not persuasive.