Because it would be like an American who complains for the violence of Mexico but buys illegal marijuana and cocaine. He is the cause; but all he does is hoping that others will stop the violence some other way rather than he quitting drugs.
But he's not complaining, just reporting. If I'm fat, is it immoral for me to say that obesity is a problem?
Frankly, I find his position ridiculous. He's essentially saying journalists have to be these beacons of virtue above everyone else if they want to report on bad things that are happening.
It's fine to say that obesity is a problem, but it's hypocritical to berate Burger King for contributing to obesity when you eat there three nights a week. It's even worse when you excuse it, saying that your circumstances are special somehow.
The reporter, similarly, is looking for fuel to blame the banks for their evil practices, when she herself is contributing to the flow of evil information.
But so what if it is hypocritical? Is it any less true? Why should her personal life be in any way relevant?
I can understand his point about users being the problem - although that doesn't in any way excuse the banks - but criticizing her specifically is completely ridiculous.
It reminds me of how I hear people in my country commenting to each other about how nice is that politician because he rides a scooter instead of a Mercedes, while he and his party continue to sell out the country to big companies.
It's an irrelevant, stupid detail that detract from his position and makes him seem like an unreasonable person.
He's making the point that she just doesn't GET it. He took a confrontational tone specifically to get her to spit out excuses for her continued use of Facebook.
His point is not just that users are contributing to the problem, but that users REFUSE to believe they're contributing to the problem. It's the whole "a little bit can't hurt" excuse, which is why he used littering as a metaphor.
In the end it doesn't matter what she writes about the evil banks. It's impossible to stop them from using information YOU PUBLISHED against you. If you don't publish it, it can't be used against you. His further rant is against your friends publishing information about you that can be used against you.
So yeah, she can write her story about banks denying loans based on photos of your frequent trips to Vegas, but it's not going to help anybody because people will focus on the evil banks, and will still fail to grasp the concept of NOT PUBLISHING PERSONAL INFORMATION.
That metaphor is wrong in an intriguing and illustrative way. The problem with drugs is that they're illegal, so criminals have a monopoly. If they were legal, that part of the problem would largely disappear. Granted, it would be replaced with other problems, and there are those who believe (I'm not one of them) that the resulting problems would be worse... but the fact remains.
How would I recast your metaphor to be more like what Moglen is saying? No idea, since I think he's a crackpot and he's quite wrong, but it was fun thinking about it.
just because legalisation would improve the situation doesn't mean that people who continue to buy drugs illegaly are not also responsible for the problems in mexico.
a problem can have multiple causes, and multiple solutions. but that does not mean that you can choose one solution as the "correct" one and discard all the others.
the typical american who buys drugs cannot change the law, but they can stop buying drugs and that would reduce the problems. so if they choose not to do so then they have some moral responsibility for the violence in mexico. that is not removed because there are other possible solutions.
I don't buy that line of argument at all. You're claiming that if you can establish some line of cause and effect then anyone in that chain must take moral responsibility for the outcome.
That's like saying an author who writes something that offends Islamists is responsible for any violence perpetrated on them, since they had the choice of not publishing.
The moral responsibility for acts of violence lies with those that commit them, or incite others to do so.
Criminals will be criminals. They are responsible for their own actions. But if you're contributing to their coffers, you're only encouraging them. You don't even have to frame this in terms of morality. They're doing something you don't like. Do you want to help them or hinder them? Sometimes hindering them involves denying yourself. This is how boycotts work.
So someone needs to become a vegan in order to write about animal cruelty?
Sometimes it's not so clear that things are so black and white. Just because I write about an issue doesn't mean I will first have to get on one side of it.
However, if you do say that you take sides, take sides.
You don't need to be a vegan to write about animal cruelty, but you'd better be one to complain about it. (Assuming for the sake of the argument that eating meat causes animal cruelty.)
So, while you don't have to quit Facebook to write about its effects on privacy, you'd better quit if you want to complain about those effects.
(EDIT: I retract: other comments point out that acknowledging you contribute to a problem you complain about is sufficient for not being a hypocrite. While it would be better to just stop contributing to that problem, unilaterally deciding that often exposes you to the No Network Effect. So, you can't really be expected to stop first. That first-mover disadvantage is sometimes a deal-breaker. We need some coordination to avoid it. But it is important to acknowledge you're part of the problem. For if you don't, there is no hope.)