[kstenerud]

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.

[icebraining]

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.

[kstenerud]

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.