If I send you something, you should be able to copy and distribute it as you see fit, no matter what I wish you would and wouldn't do with it, and my recourse should be limited to not sending you more things in the future.
In this interpretation, FB should not have been fined for CA. While it’s a cogent theory, regulators disagree with you and they have guns backing them up.
Thankfully many of us here live in countries where the pen is mightier than the sword. If regulators' opinions don't match up with those of the people, then maybe we need some new regulators.
Not trying to imply there's any sort of consensus here, of course. Just that "regulators disagree" certainly isn't the end of the discussion in any country with a functioning democracy.
To be clear, I'm not saying that there should be no consequences if you distribute a message that I didn't want you to. I'm just saying that I shouldn't be able to stop you from doing so. If you signed a contract saying you wouldn't, and then you do, I should still be able to sue for that, but the existence of such a contract shouldn't let me control your technology to prevent you from breaking it in the first place.
I'm distinguishing between two different meanings of "can't": not allowed vs. not capable. You should be capable of violating NDA/ToS's, but possibly suffer legal consequences if you choose to do so.
