These and other examples you mentioned are improbable and low harm possibilities. Average damage per user is several orders of magnitude smaller than the avera

These and other examples you mentioned are improbable and low harm possibilities. Average damage per user is several orders of magnitude smaller than the average benefit of targeted advertising: for the company, for businesses and even for users of the platform. The similar arguments can be applied to convince people that cars are harmful: * cars kill quite a lot of people * if you drink and drive, you can get to jail * gazoline is expensive * cars pollute the air * cars produce noise which reduces quality of life A hundred years ago one could convince a lot of people that cars need to be prohibited. And they were quite successful: > The most draconian restrictions and speed limits were imposed by the 1865 act (the "Red Flag Act"), which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6.4 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3.2 km/h) in the city, as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag to walk in front of road vehicles hauling multiple wagons. The arguments you are suggesting, all of them are true. Companies need to be more transparent about tracking, perform external audit etc., stricter laws regulating personal data is needed to make sure data is not misused, strict laws regulating what can be advertized. But killing all of tracking would be similar to restricting speed limit to 3 mph. Well, it will definitely be safer.