It's "a Google and Apple can't use this model in production" clause that frankly we can all be relatively okay with.
It should also be noted (again) that the value of the terms open science and open source comes from the sacrifices and efforts of numerous academic, commercial, personal, etc. actors over several decades. They "paid" by sticking to the principles of these movements and Facebook is now cashing in on their efforts; solely for their own benefit. Not even Microsoft back in 2001 in the age of "fear uncertainty and doubt" were so dishonest as to label the source-available portions of their Shared Source Initiative as something it was not. Facebook has been called out again and again since the release of LLaMA 1 (which in its paper appropriated the term "open") and have shown no willingness to reconsider their open science and open source misuse. At this point, I can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. The best defence I have heard is that they seek to "define open in the 'age of AI'", but if that was the case, where is their consensus building efforts akin to what we have seen numerous academics and OSI carry out? No, sadly the only logical conclusion is that it is cynical marketing on their part, both from their academics and business people.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative
In short. I think the correct response to Facebook is: "Thank you for the weights, we appreciate it. However, please stop calling your actions and releases something they clearly are not."
You're only ok with it if you're not interested in having maximum freedom of movement vis-a-vis any potential exits.