"best way to provide utility to the user" in aggregate only. For those who want privacy, what existed was just fine. Same as 'obvious features that would be bettered". Twitter defaults to everything-open and we all knew that from day 1. Facebook keeps trying to "increase utility" for me. I don't want that - I just want to share info with my friends. MySpace has maximum utility because any pr0n star can friend you. Do not want.
The article doesn't say EULA's are cheating you, it says that Facebook is destroying the trust users have that most sites will treat your privacy carefully.
Pretty much every feature Facebook adds has encountered this reaction. I think that on average, the subsequent usage and adoption statistics do not support your claim that users don't want increased utility.
It is true that a few things have become less private, but on the whole, the privacy of things on Facebook is easier to control, finer-grained and clearer to people.
My point is not that increased utility is bad, it's that what you consider increased utility is not what I might. Reduced privacy is a reduction in utility to me.
Now, note - I'm a FB app writer. I'm happy I can see more of this info. My own privacy settings are tighter than most, so I don't lose out there either. However, if FB wants to provide utility to users, educate them much more about the implications of each checkbox because most users still don't get why it's important.
The article doesn't say EULA's are cheating you, it says that Facebook is destroying the trust users have that most sites will treat your privacy carefully.