Ugh. I hate these sorts of arguments. "ha! you're outraged? Maybe you're not outraged enough! You do something? Do more, you're not doing enough!". If you tell

Ugh. I hate these sorts of arguments. "ha! you're outraged? Maybe you're not outraged enough! You do something? Do more, you're not doing enough!". If you tell people "if you stop wasting water you don't solve global warming!" it typically won't entice them to do more; most people will hear "I might as well waste the water, my efforts are meaningless anyway". > But I digress. Yes you do. Starting with all that makes the reader feel that "they're not even the worst offenders, Google/Apple/Amazon is probably worse". Which may be true but you present no proof for that and it's not even something that you needed to argue. > By all means, criticize Facebook if you think they've done something wrong, but don't stop there. Make sure you understand the full scope of the problem Or stop there if you wish - it's still something. It's certainly better than thinking "I don't have time to understand the full scope, so I'll let others do the criticism". > I've seen precious little of that. Well, lead the way. Show us how to do it. Help us understand the full scope of the problem and address it in a general way. Don't just chide people for criticising Facebook.