Similar punishment for similar transgressions is how the law is supposed to work.

> Similar punishment for similar transgressions is how the law is supposed to work.

Facebook and Equifax did not commit similar transgressions, and to say to is misleading.

I'm not sure anyone claims that, but obviously saying "Similar punishment for similar transgressions" means that different transgressions need not have the same punishments.

Assuming those punishments are fair and just - the punishments companies have been getting lately for privacy violations have been relatively consistent - nobody is actually being punished.

I think equifax has a "too big to fail" burden, credit scores are part of how things work in the country. And I'm not sure they're directly responsible for the leak of their data.

Facebook is far from being essential, it's mostly a consumer product. There are so many voices against facebook that I don't think there would be enough public support to protect facebook.

The political think tank that promulgated the term "whataboutism" has created a bane on humanity.

The problem with the term "whataboutism" is that its users wield it to prevent discussion about anything that doesn't fit their agenda. In particular, its main use has been to amplify the Russiagate conspiracy which was never backed by any evidence and yet was the forefront of public attention for almost three years. If you pointed out actual evidence-based foreign influence such as that put forward by the Saudis, you were accused of "whataboutism". This was almost certainly a tactic dreamed up in a politically motivated D.C. think tank or PR firm, and has prevented fruitful discussion of countless real issues for an extended period of time.

You're labouring under several grave misapprehensions. This addresses one of them:

https://archive.org/details/muellerreport/page/n7

It's not inherently bad, it's just misused a lot IMO.