Don't think the intent of my question was communicated clearly. Let's try again.
From your original post:
> The only reason this is exaggerated as a "data breech" is because of the connection to the Trump campaign.
You have provided no evidence of this, and until you do, your comment is read as a case of whataboutism[0]. Because we are not shoehorned into the pursuit of a unilateral solution, we can both [A] call out Trump's unethical engagement of Cambridge Analytica (CA) and [B] lobby for more stringent privacy regulations, like the EU is doing.
Given the, as a prior commenter said, 25 scandals, along with string of accusations of indecent conduct, collusion, etc. that Trump is clouded with, the conclusion being made is that his engagement is not the unknowing of an unethical actor acting on his behalf, rather the turning of a blind eye.
So given the inflammatory nature of the original comment:
> Let's be realistic here. This headline is nothing but partisanship.
So in sum, on first glance your comment leads me to assume you have an agenda.
Assuming that this isn't true, lets talk about main issue here: the micro targeting of ads, and the usage of this "data breach" in the Trump campaign.
Frankly, this scares me. The power this data provides and the way that it can be wielded should scare people - who wants to live in a world where the government/corporations/people can induce people into certain behaviors? Whether Trump or Clinton uses this information would result in people bringing up their pitchforks.
I don't think that we're exaggerating here calling it a data breach - it is a gross misuse of personal information, however gained. And while I'll admit the term data breach is a bit of a stretch, the connotation of the word fits perfectly with the situation. People downloaded an app for a survey, had their
entire social network scraped, and then had that information used for an ulterior motive, without them knowing at all. We should be holding them accountable for their scummy behavior. Facebook already is starting to.
We've already seen the GOP bring up the email campaign and Benghazi for the entire length of the Clinton campaign. Note the irony here as the GOP is almost completely silent over America's current president's daily antics. It is the lack of response from the GOP toward any of the recent political events that is characterizing HN's response toward CA as overblown.
So with that said, why do you believe that it's unethical to call out Trump and by extension CA's actions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism