> While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experience

> While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experiences or behaviors that are inconsistent with the essence of the problem they're trying to address, it ought to be brought up this entire statement is the exact opposite of true: anyone can raise awareness of the problem regardless of who they are, it doesn't make them a "representative" of anything (just imagine them reading an anonymous comment card they pulled out of a box) and any inconsistency you see between them and the problem is irrelevant, and is a distraction if brought up that is why tu quoque, what you are describing, is a fallacy > For an individual wearing a lanyard with the problem statement being, "there are too many lanyards in the world", you are well above your means to inquire on his participation within the problem firsthand, and how they're contributing to it (or lack thereof). you would be engaging in the logical fallacy of whataboutism, because your questioning of him doesn't address the problem, and is in fact counterproductive in solving the problem, because you are attacking an ally in solving the problem this illustrates why tu quoque is a fallacy when trying to solve the problem put another way, because their identity is irrelevant, a 100% equally valid question would be for him to ask you what are you are doing to solve the problem the analogy is bad anyways, because in this real life topic, the whataboutism user is wrongly conflating two different actions, as well as ascribing actions to people who didn't do them. All the people who responded here pointing out that they don't, in fact, sell private data, were conveniently ignored by the original tu quoque perpetrator