I agree. But as a rule of thumb, if someone gives you the service for free, they have no choice but to collect value from you by other means. Whereas when you pay money for the service, the business does have a choice not to sell your data. Either way, I guess we need to read the terms to be sure.
If a company has a certain type of investors or shareholders, they may have no choice but to collect value from you all means possible regardless of how much value they are already collecting.
One very underrated (or overrated depending on your pessimism) way to deliver value to customers is by offering privacy as one of the products you deliver. The issue is that privacy is hard to prove and so most claims of privacy are accepted at face value and many proclaimed privacy minded services are very much the opposite under the hood.
This, I think, is a place where we need some regulation to codify some different forms of privacy and give the government a big stick to bop companies over the head when they violate those definitions. We could potentially manage the definitions as an industry group - but we'd need the government to get the big stick.
> This, I think, is a place where we need some regulation to codify some different forms of privacy and give the government a big stick to bop companies over the head when they violate those definitions.
I 100% agree with you, but doubt this will ever happen in a heavily pro-surveillance government in an effective corporatocracy. Therefore, I think open source can and needs to do better in providing free competition against potentially-dystopian closed-source alternatives
