Gotcha -- so, you're talking about easily updating your Facebook account with a post that says "Hey, I posted this thing on DW", but the way you're used to doing that is by using the built-in thing LJ has on every entry (written by everyone) that lets you post a link to that entry on FB, if I've gotten that right?
So, the answer is kind of a combination of the two scenarios I already gave you: we don't yet have a "share a link to this entry on FB", much less on every entry, because a lot of our users feel like having the site present people with an easy way to share their entries on other sites (particularly Facebook) is a violation of their privacy because it makes their content too discoverable. There are lots of arguments both for and against this view -- some people think it doesn't make sense, since anything that's publicly posted on the internet can be linked to from anywhere on the internet, while other people feel that there's a big difference between "anyone can manually post a link to my entry anywhere on the internet" and "the site I'm posting my entries on makes it easy for people to post links to my entries elsewhere on the internet, which feels like they're encouraging people to give my entries more and wider attention than I want my entries to get".
(Also, people on both sides of the divide tend to have very strong opinions and believe that people who hold the opposite opinions are Wrong On The Internet, so discussion of things like this tend to get very heated, very quickly, which you've already seen a bit of. For the record, it's not entitled to ask about a feature that you'd like to have, and we like it when people do, whether the answer is "yup, you can already do that", "we've got that on The List but haven't done it yet", or "that doesn't fit in with our vision for the site". Never hesitate to ask.)
POSSIBLY TOO IN DEPTH ANSWER ABOUT THE SORT OF THINGS WE CONSIDER WHEN MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THIS AHOY:
The way that LJ implemented the "share a link to this entry" system, including sharing to Facebook, leans more to the side of "we, the site, want people to widely share links to entries on LJ, because that will drive traffic to our site and will possibly encourage more people to use it" -- it's a form of site advertising, really. Which, business-wise, is a legitimate choice for a business to make! A site like LJ will have business goals that include, at least partially, wanting to improve the metrics that advertisers look at -- number of visits, number of active users, number of new user signups -- so that they'll be able to charge more for their ads because more people will be looking at them.
But we (Dreamwidth-we, I mean) have less of an urgent pressure to market ourselves as a service in that kind of way: we don't have advertising, so we don't have that oversized pressure to chase after the sort of metrics that advertisers demand like pageviews, active users, and new-user signups. Rather, the way we run our business (entirely user-supported) means that our main incentives are a) please our existing users so they're more likely to upgrade their accounts and/or keep their accounts upgraded, either because they like the paid user features or because they want to support us-the-company because they like how we do things; b) expand our userbase to people who are likely to be pleased by how we roll, because people who are pleased with how we roll will be more likely to stick around long-term and more likely to support us. So, we don't have to make decisions based on "will this get more people to hear about Dreamwidth or click on a link to a post on DW"; instead, we can decide based on "is this something our existing user base wants" and "is this something that fits in to the general way we do things". ("The general way we do things" is covered by our Guiding Principles.) Since we're not trying to become a mega-super-massive social network with mega-super-massive traffic, we can do things differently than other sites do.
So, "respecting privacy and giving people the tools to control their content" is one of our guiding principles, and so is "taking user feedback into account on decisions" and "giving people as much flexibility in how they use the site as possible". However, we have to be careful not to build in too much flexibility, since more flexibility means more complexity and more options, and more options are generally bad UI -- having too many options can be a usability disaster.
Combining all those factors, you wind up in a situation where :
a) a bunch of people (like you!) really want a share-to-Facebook widget; b) another bunch of people really don't want their content shared to Facebook; c) so if we implement a share-to-Facebook widget, we have to accomodate both views; d) but doing so means adding more options, and thus more complexity, to the site; e) and if we don't design it carefully, or miss thinking about some use cases that people use the site for, we risk upsetting a bunch of our users; f) so it's not as simple as "just add a share-to-Facebook widget!" g) and we're a really small company with really limited resources, so stuff that's more complex or needs careful design often takes a long time.
The tl;dr version: yes, we're aware that there's a big opportunity to revise the whole workflow around sharing/publicizing entries, such as to Facebook! We haven't done it yet because it needs very careful consideration so it doesn't violate the privacy expectations of our users for whom privacy is the main reason they use DW, and while we know there are people who really want better sharing options and better ways to publicize their own content, we haven't had the resources to dedicate to working out a system that works for everybody.
Re: Facebook
So, the answer is kind of a combination of the two scenarios I already gave you: we don't yet have a "share a link to this entry on FB", much less on every entry, because a lot of our users feel like having the site present people with an easy way to share their entries on other sites (particularly Facebook) is a violation of their privacy because it makes their content too discoverable. There are lots of arguments both for and against this view -- some people think it doesn't make sense, since anything that's publicly posted on the internet can be linked to from anywhere on the internet, while other people feel that there's a big difference between "anyone can manually post a link to my entry anywhere on the internet" and "the site I'm posting my entries on makes it easy for people to post links to my entries elsewhere on the internet, which feels like they're encouraging people to give my entries more and wider attention than I want my entries to get".
(Also, people on both sides of the divide tend to have very strong opinions and believe that people who hold the opposite opinions are Wrong On The Internet, so discussion of things like this tend to get very heated, very quickly, which you've already seen a bit of. For the record, it's not entitled to ask about a feature that you'd like to have, and we like it when people do, whether the answer is "yup, you can already do that", "we've got that on The List but haven't done it yet", or "that doesn't fit in with our vision for the site". Never hesitate to ask.)
POSSIBLY TOO IN DEPTH ANSWER ABOUT THE SORT OF THINGS WE CONSIDER WHEN MAKING DECISIONS LIKE THIS AHOY:
The way that LJ implemented the "share a link to this entry" system, including sharing to Facebook, leans more to the side of "we, the site, want people to widely share links to entries on LJ, because that will drive traffic to our site and will possibly encourage more people to use it" -- it's a form of site advertising, really. Which, business-wise, is a legitimate choice for a business to make! A site like LJ will have business goals that include, at least partially, wanting to improve the metrics that advertisers look at -- number of visits, number of active users, number of new user signups -- so that they'll be able to charge more for their ads because more people will be looking at them.
But we (Dreamwidth-we, I mean) have less of an urgent pressure to market ourselves as a service in that kind of way: we don't have advertising, so we don't have that oversized pressure to chase after the sort of metrics that advertisers demand like pageviews, active users, and new-user signups. Rather, the way we run our business (entirely user-supported) means that our main incentives are a) please our existing users so they're more likely to upgrade their accounts and/or keep their accounts upgraded, either because they like the paid user features or because they want to support us-the-company because they like how we do things; b) expand our userbase to people who are likely to be pleased by how we roll, because people who are pleased with how we roll will be more likely to stick around long-term and more likely to support us. So, we don't have to make decisions based on "will this get more people to hear about Dreamwidth or click on a link to a post on DW"; instead, we can decide based on "is this something our existing user base wants" and "is this something that fits in to the general way we do things". ("The general way we do things" is covered by our Guiding Principles.) Since we're not trying to become a mega-super-massive social network with mega-super-massive traffic, we can do things differently than other sites do.
So, "respecting privacy and giving people the tools to control their content" is one of our guiding principles, and so is "taking user feedback into account on decisions" and "giving people as much flexibility in how they use the site as possible". However, we have to be careful not to build in too much flexibility, since more flexibility means more complexity and more options, and more options are generally bad UI -- having too many options can be a usability disaster.
Combining all those factors, you wind up in a situation where :
a) a bunch of people (like you!) really want a share-to-Facebook widget;
b) another bunch of people really don't want their content shared to Facebook;
c) so if we implement a share-to-Facebook widget, we have to accomodate both views;
d) but doing so means adding more options, and thus more complexity, to the site;
e) and if we don't design it carefully, or miss thinking about some use cases that people use the site for, we risk upsetting a bunch of our users;
f) so it's not as simple as "just add a share-to-Facebook widget!"
g) and we're a really small company with really limited resources, so stuff that's more complex or needs careful design often takes a long time.
The tl;dr version: yes, we're aware that there's a big opportunity to revise the whole workflow around sharing/publicizing entries, such as to Facebook! We haven't done it yet because it needs very careful consideration so it doesn't violate the privacy expectations of our users for whom privacy is the main reason they use DW, and while we know there are people who really want better sharing options and better ways to publicize their own content, we haven't had the resources to dedicate to working out a system that works for everybody.