[thisisit]

This is disappointing from WSJ. Google's data collection is a good story but pulling Facebook in and then devolving into what-about-ism is not. This is toeing the what-about-Google/twitter stance Facebook took in it's release.

> Google gathers more personal data than Facebook does, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?

Because one problem at a time. If we are going down this path, how about,

> Many people die of hunger every year more than Facebook, by almost every measure—so why aren’t we talking about it?

[dqpb]

I think your getting the "what-about-ism" argument backwards. This isn't avoiding talking about Google by saying "What about Facebook". This is comparing the two to highlight it's point about Google, the subject of the article.

[thisisit]

Maybe I have it wrong but what-about-ism isn't only about avoidance. It is also about drawing an equivalence saying - "Yes, X is bad but what about Y?" The idea being if everyone does it then X hasn't done anything wrong.

[ocdtrekkie]

Noone is saying Facebook hasn't done anything wrong. We just don't want Google to get away with it.

Whataboutism would be if we were to suggest Facebook isn't that bad because Google does it too. But articles like this are trying to point out that both companies are doing bad things: We should be going after both of them.

[908087]

> Because one problem at a time

This is dealing with one problem at a time. The problem is unchecked commercialized mass surveillance, and any laws that come out of this should apply to Google, Facebook, and every other company that has been engaging in these practices.

Your attempt to spin these as unrelated with that last line doesn't even make sense.