Prior to 1983, nearly everyone in the US and Canada had to lease their physical telephones (wired and wireless) from Ma Bell, and if you didn’t like the phone Ma Bell gave you, tough luck. Your other choice was to simply not have access to the PSTN.

If you want to have rights in any meaningful sense, people's actions must be limited such that they don't violate them overmuch.

>A company can only “violate my rights” if I choose to use those services.

That's complete nonsense. But even if it were true, how do you suppose that would help you if you don't have a handy oracle that provides you perfect information about every company's actions past, present, and future? It's not as if a company is likely to advertise practices they don't want you to know about. And there's nothing (aside from the government) preventing them from deciding the day after you purchase goods from them that, for example, they're not going to honor warranties anymore. And, of course, you don't have to buy from a company for them dump industrial waste on your property.

>It’s much easier not to for instance use a phone with an operating system controlled by an adTech company than it is to not have to deal with a government.

Is it easier to purchase all your goods and services from companies that have no objectionable practices? You probably don't have many choices of ISP and it's increasingly difficult to find a TV without some manner of integrated as tech.

>Do you really think a government that always pushes the limit on being a surveillance state cares about your “privacy”?

"The government" is not a single entity with only a single goal. Do I think that well-written legislation aimed at protecting privacy would, in effect, tend to protect privacy? Of course. Do I think that would stop the NSA from violating citizens' right to privacy? Of course not.