Good to know, and I always appreciate and respect people bringing statistics and citations - but this in no way refutes my core point that it is always reasonab

Good to know, and I always appreciate and respect people bringing statistics and citations - but this in no way refutes my core point that it is always reasonable to assume that Facebook will act unethically based on their past behaviour. You've provided a strong datapoint indicating that the training sources in question were ethically sourced* - that's good! I'm glad to hear that Facebook avoided _this specific way of acting unethically_. This does not affect in any way my judgement of the likelihood of Facebook acting in _other_ unethical ways in this area, such as using the collected data in unethical ways. * I don't, personally, hold the opinion that "just because something was posted publicly means that it is ethically permissible to do _anything_ with that content", since it's unreasonable to believe that the average internet user is giving informed consent to uses like this - but I do concede that that's a more subjective perspective and is probably not supported by the letter of the law. Luckily, this isn't relevant to my argument. As an aside - I clicked around in a few pages on CommonCrawl's site (https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/, https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questions/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questio..., https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/ https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/) and didn't see any statement to the effect that social media posts were excluded, and a Google search for "Does CommonCrawl index social media" didn't provide a definitive answer, either. You're under no obligation to prove it to me - and, as I detailed above, even if you did, it wouldn't affect my general distrust of Facebook.