Most live publicly with their faces on display for all to see and others taking it a step further, participating in Facebook alongside billions of others.
It doesn’t scream facial identity being a major concern.
Most people have them in their homes, breathe them, eat them, and others take it a step further, participating in the creation of them.
It doesn't scream fear of cancer being a major concern.
That people live their lives accepting that their faces are on display is not evidence otherwise, since there is literally no other option.
Participating Facebook is also not evidence otherwise -- at most, it's evidence that people are willing to trade privacy in some circumstances (and I think even that's a bit of a stretch), but I'll bet that most Facebook users would object to having their privacy invaded without their consent -- which means they care about privacy.
I say this with seriousness. When considering this alternative, the option of living alone, without human interaction, public identity shows it positive attributes.
Which is what was being proposed and subsequently doubted: that people were willing to consensually trade their picture for $5.
