Equifax may have your bank statements, and whatever sensitive numbers they can collect, but they do not literally have have your inner thoughts, in the same way that Facebook and Google have.

That is an important distinction.

Surveillance like this is harmful, either way. Not just the leaks, but the actual data gathering itself should be criticized. Why is it that during the Equifax leak nobody criticized the data gathering in the first place? It was all about the leak. In this case I am glad that the data gathering is being put into question.

But anyway, my main point is that they are collecting different sets of private data.

Are you sure about what data those companies have? Example: it seems like you can't sign in to Starbucks wifi any more (via Google) without giving a real email address that is verified through Experian's API. There is surely more going on than consumers know.

The cost of equifax losing my data is far greater than the cost of fbook losing my data.

You can opt out of interest based ads/shadow profiles without having to be a Facebook user by visiting https://www.facebook.com/ads/settings.

It's just not very well publicized.

Commenting to mention that you have to click to expand the "Manage Online Interest-Based Ads" section then click the "Digital Advertising Alliance" in order to opt out.

Most of these things FB has put up where you can get information without having an account seem to be obfuscated on purpose.

You'd hate to know what private investigators can [legally] do. Of course that's a bit different since mega-databases have millions of persons' data compared with manual effort that doesn't scale. I hate meatspace data brokers too but they have the defense that most of the data points were public to begin with (except for loan history).

This is not the time for whataboutism. The Equifax case is still being pursued. This happened a week ago: "Massachusetts can sue Equifax over data breach, judge rules" https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/04/05/massachusetts-can-sue-eq...

I wasn't really trying to go down the "what about" route in my comment. I think these companies (and many more) are part of the same issue: collecting so-called "shadow profiles" on non-consenting "customers", and not providing (meaningful) ways to opt out.

As for the article you pointed to: it deals with the fallout of the leak. I want to deal with why were they allowed to collect that information to begin with.

The term "whataboutism" is quickly becoming my least favorite word. We're allowed to talk about issues in a wider context. It's often helpful.

I'm very much interested in this issue as a whole and not just singling out Facebook as if they're the only bad actors. I'd appreciate letting that discussion take place rather than using some newly minted word to try and stifle it.

Agreed. It's not really being used correctly any time I see it being used (aside from describing actual propaganda, which is what this term comes from) -- "whataboutism" is a very specific tactic. The intent to distract from the issue at hand is a necessary component. Bringing in relative context in a productive manner != whataboutism.

It's a good word when debating facts but, you're right, when debating subjective things like this, bringing up the credit reporting agencies sure seems like it is on topic.

Whataboutism isn't about "talk[ing] about issues in a wider context." It's about distracting from the issues at hand and derailing discussions.

Whataboutism is pointing to your opponent's flaws to change the subject from yours. I think OP is suggesting that both social media and consumer financial profilers need closer scrutiny, not that SM should be excused.

Equifax isn’t being used as a vehicle to manipulate the political process. This isn’t just about data privacy.

I highly doubt it isn't being used for political purposes. Not that I think it matters tbh they shouldn't have so much data regardless.