A lot of oversimplification. It assumes that what drives an organism is only its rewarding itself.

For most the nearby pack is as important as themselves. They are your family. Thus your reward is having a stronger family.

Assume the classical prisoner dilemma:
If A and B decided not to talk, then A and B gets 1 year of other charges.
If A and B decided not to talk, then A and B get 10 years.
If A decides to talk, and B does not A gets free, B gets 20
If B decides to talk, and A does not B gets free, A gets 20


But what if your organization is important to you? Or what if deciding to talk means that you will get wacked by the other members of the organization? In real life this happens.

If your son is going to go to jail and you can prevent it by taking the blame? Many people will choose to help their son. The survival of the fittest model is flawed, as it does not take into account that not all that drives a living being is their own survivability. Sometimes the survivability of those around you (aka your family) means more to you.

Is interesting how academia can get away with fraud. Knowingly impersonating someone is fraud, irrelevant if the purpose is monetary or not.  As robots have no rights, and a robot impersonating a human is as much of a fraud like a man impersonating a woman. Why then isn't a law that requires an algorithm to identify itself as an algorithm? Why is coming from Academia a free pass to commit fraud without repercusion?

I know that SpyBook, aka Facebook can be abused. I closed my account years ago when they started to ask in my personal email information about other people. My information is my own, and I can share it freely, but they can go to hell if they expect me to give someone else information. Then it hit me that they must be doing the same with everyone else.

As for "consent" for a picture to be shown. Let me put it this way, they can change the flag any time in their database. Even if they do it on purpose, you would have no recourse in court. They can always say that it didn't have the flag. They can even attribute a computer glitch. And if everything fails they can always appeal to their end user agreement. So bottom line, do not post your pictures with them. When you are not the client (aka the one paying) is safe to assume that you are the product.

So basically they tried to screw up developers that where doing things for fun, and then wondered why they didn't participate?

I wouldn't want to play any game made by an idiot that signed that contract. Neither would I want to meet the idiot that made the contract.