There are a few probable answers to this, I'll bring two. First one, it could be a coincidence. Second one is, it's because if somebody wants to put something in a bad light, it doesn't matter what that something is going to be - it will always be possible to find a property, which, shown in certain light, will look bad. For example, if WP was younger than FB, the wording could be around proven convenience vs. attempts to disrupt.

This is just the answer to the literal question, it doesn't in any way relate to the topic itself.

Over here (New Zealand) they usually content themselves with insisting that Facebook must give money to old-media companies to compensate them for loss of revenue.

I think part of the problem is that old-Media companies have lost a lot of revenue and laid off a lot of people in the last few years. Journalists directly blame Facebook (rather than say Auction or Jobs sites) for their friends losing their jobs.

old media is a dieing industry so desperate to kick big tech into the ground, they'll do just about anything. I've seen their scathing editorials on big tech: it's getting pathetic.

As parent, I expect to protect my own child. I don't need politicians using that as an excuse to expand their authoritarian powers.

Probably has something to do with the actions of said "new media figures".

This is about regulatory changes from the UK government.

This is just tautological thinking