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.