I agree with you. People love to throw around the word "whataboutism" when you call them on their hypocrisy. That's why it's a lot of politicians' and comment

I agree with you. People love to throw around the word "whataboutism" when you call them on their hypocrisy. That's why it's a lot of politicians' and commentators' favorite word. They never care to elaborate as to why they think the other example you are bringing into the discussion is not comparable to what is currently on the table. Ironically, crying "whataboutism" is, in itself, a form of whataboutism. Generally, when you bring up another similar example in an argument where someone appears to be applying a double standard, the idea is to start discussion about what the actual standard is. In this case, I would like to know why Facebook is not considered a security risk on this scale when they collect equal amounts of data, given the fact that Chinese and Indian agents are likely deeply embedded at Facebook (as they are at Twitter, per Mudge's disclosure) in positions that have access to the data. That means the standard is clearly not: "Companies who make troves of data about Americans available to the Chinese government are bad." I would like to know what the standard is. I would also like it to be extended to cover Facebook, Google, Apple, Uber, and all the other American companies who surveil me too. While we're at it, I would like it to be extended to cover the NSA and the FBI, too, who wipe their ass with the 4th amendment.