Why? Here are her arguments, starting from her own usage:
- the convenience of being able to ping large groups of my friends all at once for some feedback or a couch to sleep on;
- the private groups and communities of friends and strangers that support each other;
- the event invitations to art openings and parties that I’d undoubtedly otherwise miss
- for people with marginalized identities, chronic illnesses, or families spread across the world, walking away means leaving behind a potentially vital safety net of support
- small businesses that can’t afford to build a website or post billboard ads use Facebook to find customers;
- plenty of artists and small media outlets rely on the platform to spread their work;
- activists often rely on it to reach potential audiences through which to spread their messages or calls for demonstrations.
She even drags into the argument the modern insensitive villains, white dudes: "a certain demographic — namely, white men — love to argue that people worried about data privacy violations should “just leave”".
To me, this sounds like a very strange understanding of "privilege". Surely, it's the other way around — it was Facebook that giving her the privilege of keeping in touch with her friends and being in the loop about upcoming events. Surely, it was Facebook that was giving small businesses the competitive advantage of finding customers. Choosing a lifestyle or a career that requires you to monitor a social network hardly makes you "unprivileged".
It is kind of like arguing that abstaining from alcohol is a luxury many cannot afford, because they want to party, or to talk to their business partners at dinners, or not to look weird in a company of friends, and so on.