It makes sense. Poor people can't pay for privacy, now that it became a feature instead of a right.
Second, lets imagine that poor people would prefer whipping instead of imprisonment (they can return to work sooner) or fine.
Should we follow the same logic here then and accept it?
Being poor is not a crime.
Say, instead of fine 50, I may agree to accept 5 whips with a wooden stick on my back. Because I need these 50.
So should we accept whipping the poor if they demand it?
I would argue that violation of the online privacy is worse than whipping. No, the problem is not that somebody knows what specific content you are watching. The problem is that they find out you are poor.
Youtube once considered that I could be a stereotypic poor person living in the US. The result was ugly.