The slides (as usual for slides) are pretty ambiguous, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#In... says that the companies and Facebook in particular deny cooperation with PRISM, and the only quote from media sources that sounds skeptical about that is from WaPo wonkblog [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/h...] which says that one of the slides talks about combining data provided by companies (with warrants, NSLs, and other legal orders) with data collected by adversarial means.
So, no, that link does not support the claim that Facebook cooperated with PRISM.
"which says that one of the slides talks about combining data provided by companies (with warrants, NSLs, and other legal orders) with data collected by adversarial means"
Cool story. If it was true, surely one of the nine companies listed on the PRISM slides would have adopted it as an explanation for why they are listed.
There are five quotes explaining it that way right in the wikipedia article. The only company quoted that doesn't admit to complying with court orders is Dropbox; they flatly deny involvement in anything such as PRISM.
I'm not saying there is proof of lack of wrongdoing, but it would be great if people would stop claiming without evidence that these companies made deals with NSA. Evidence-based decision making is better than paranoia.
So, no, that link does not support the claim that Facebook cooperated with PRISM.