I don't think the accusation is "this is as dirty as rape" is made at all. It's easy to overreact when someone brings up a topic like sexual assault because nobody in their right mind likes to be associated with such horrendous behaviour. However, the framework society has set up around consent is still useful.
Consent is implied (or assumed) in most day to day events. However, privacy law in the EU has brought the topic of consent into the internet and onto computers, whether you want it or not. That's because digital privacy and all manner of things it accompanies has been regulated because the industry has failed to implement the necessary safeguard by itself.
You may feel like such telemetry doesn't need explicit consent, like you or me commenting on posts here, and that's a valid opinion to have. Others viscerally disagree.
I personally think digital consent is a field of computer ethics that has been ignored for way too long. I'm very happy with the GDPR and only wish government would start enforcing privacy laws more often. You're free to disagree with me and I can understand your position if you do.
For those that do consider software tracking something that requires consent, there is a real emotional impact to seeing your privacy be violated by software and devices you otherwise trust. Ignoring that because you disagree with the underlying notion can only lead to misunderstanding and exaggerated flame wars. It'll also generate distrust and friction within your community.
To all of the points you have listed where consent is usually implied or assumed, there are groups that disagree. Air and noise pollution are regulated for a good reason; laws around those are often vague because these topics are extremely situational. I do actually think most billboards should be banned from public spaces for both ethical and safety reasons. There are large groups that consider the laws in the places they've been born in to be unjust and are angry that they're subjected under them, and demand (usually through a misinterpreted or made up legal basis) that they and their peers never agreed to any of those rules. There are even laws in place about who is allowed to email you, because you did not express a desire to receive ads from random companies, though enforcement is usually completely absent.
For what it's worth, I 100% believe that the author behind this proposal is well-intentioned. The proposed methodology has been carefully constructed to respect privacy as much as possible. I also completely understand the wish for opt-out as most people simply won't choose to act on requests for opting in. However, a project like Go isn't run by a single person, and the company that does run it cannot be trusted when it comes to privacy concerns.