Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever Meta says publicly about this topic, and whatever its internal policies may be, directly contradicts its behavior. So any attempt to excuse this is nothing but virtue signalling and marketing. The privacy violations and complete disregard for user data are too numerous to mention. There's a Wikipedia article that summarizes the ones we publicly know about. Based on incentives alone, when the company's primar…
There’s a meaningful difference in a company wanting to exploit user data to enrich itself and allowing employees to engage in voyeurism. The latter doesn’t make the company money, and therefore can be penalised at no cost. Your comment talks about incentives, but you haven’t actually made a rational argument tying actual incentives to behaviour.
The problem is similar to that of government efforts to ban encryption: if you have a backdoor, everyone has a backdoor.
If Meta is collecting huge amount of user info like candy (they are) and using it for business purposes (they are), then necessarily those employees implementing those business purposes can do that, too.
You can make them pinky promise not to. That doesn't do anything.
Meta has a similar problem with stalking via Ring camera. You allow and store live feeds of every Ring camera? News flash: your employees can, too! They're gonna use that to violate your customers!