This is a hilarious comparison because it really feels that way. Why would you as a company need to defend yourself of accusations like this if they aren't true? Why not sue WSJ for libel? It's not like Facebook doesn't have the cash to do so. Oh wait, that would mean that they have to prove damages and have the spotlight shown further. So they don't do it.
Responding to the allegations is almost worse than remaining silent. It shows they are aware it's a problem and the government stepping in is the only way it'll stop.
> Why would you as a company need to defend yourself of accusations like this if they aren't true?
I'm wildly against Kafka traps like this. However, after reading the rest of your comment, I fully agree with the spirit of your post. I feel that this rhetorical question is superfluous and weakens the strength of your following rhetoric.
I _only_ mention this _because_ I like your rhetoric (in fact, I plan to steal much of it); my apologies if it seems as tone policing, which is the opposite of my intention.
I'm used to most of HN downvoting my stuff or arguing with me even though it generates a major discussion in the thread. It's almost worse than reddit but on a more anal nitpicking "how dare you condemn WSJ!" version of it.
Responding to the allegations is almost worse than remaining silent. It shows they are aware it's a problem and the government stepping in is the only way it'll stop.