Just because our social institutions have failed to protect us from various other bad actors doesn't mean we should abandon hope on trying to do something about the one in front of us today.
Can we just talk about an issue as its own issue? Maybe `b` and `c` are really hard to solve, but `a` is easy to solve.
Many arguments against action are usually framed in this comparison structure - I think it is a weak argument unless you explain why `b` and `c` out prioritize `a` for shared resources.
Surely not defeatism, when I think it's a reasonable thing for companies to plan around demographics. I don't think it's a good idea to empower social institutions to decide that you can't be considered a consumer until your 18th birthday.
It's whataboutism for sure, but in the sense that FB is literally less impactful than existing brands so the question comes to the forefront. Why? Well because Zuckman bad.