It seems to me that this is he future we are heading, where privacy is only accessible for higher classes, it's a shame we are going in this direction just in the name of profit.
But, if we started rewarding companies with our business when they exhibit good behavior, that might move the needle.
I worry that this still leaves most people in a class comprised of those who can't afford choice or doesn't find the issue pressing enough (either because the are not aware of the amount of data compiled on them, or because they don't find it harmful; or even prefer it).
That's a myth. The idea was invented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School economists in the 1970s.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...
"Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744
In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly, in cases including AP Smith Manufacturing Co v. Barlow[2] or Shlensky v. Wrigley.[3] The general legal position today is that business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole
Still, I think it's commonly understood that for-profit companies are, well, profit-driven. And, that most investors invest with an interest in making money. So, companies are largely oriented in this direction.
Perhaps people like Friedman helped to define what's considered the reasonable expectation here, and it's kind of a self-fulfilling thing.
When you only want the price of FB/GOOG to rise as a shareholder and are happy when it does (regardless of what it took to achieve it), don't be surprised when the board that represents the shareholders does whatever it takes to make it happen.
As a shareholder, you can be completely ignorant (or knowing but indifferent) of what it takes to deliver returns to your investment yet support those measures by buying shares. As a board member, the only incentive then is to raise share price because you know shareholders don't know/care about what it takes.
When the system delivers rewards to both shareholders and people running the company for extracting more profit, and requires little scrutiny of the means in which that is done, the logical optimization target function is just that - profit. The system converges to optimizing the target function.
If you are not a shareholder but merely a user, this does not apply to you. But then, your only input into the system it whether you choose to remain a user. As long as enough people remain such that the business can continue to function an generate profits, there is again no incentive for a business to change its behavior.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of employee-owned companies. But to be 100% employee owned, that means no fundraising based on selling ownership. So growth is probably going to be limited by capital. (Which, also personally, I don't think is a terrible thing either.)