The sibling reply here gets at the point I was trying to make. Immediately jumping to the extreme interpretation is not exactly in good faith. There exists a m

The sibling reply here gets at the point I was trying to make. Immediately jumping to the extreme interpretation is not exactly in good faith. There exists a middle ground in which you do not have full rights to your data generated while using SaaS products, but neither does the company who makes the SaaS product. This is why Terms of Use and Privacy Policy documents exist: to outline what rights the company wants to your data. If you don't agree to them, don't use the product. If you cannot find a product that does what you want and has a data ownership model you agree with, and you think many other people agree with you, then you have identified a market for a product. If you are unwilling or unable to build said product, perhaps your demands are unreasonable? I find it to be a childish argument to demand full control and ownership over all your data, including usage data. Like I pointed out in my original post, most people who want to control all of their data do nothing with it. They willfully destroy valuable information rather than share it with those who could use it. Sure, you might not like what they're using it for, at which point I'd be willing to agree that's a reasonable stance to take. Clearly not all data should be shared with all people. But this thread is about Figma wanting to collect data to train an AI so they can improve their product and make it easier to use. Why would you use Figma, but disagree that they should improve said product? I would find it hard to believe that you don't actually want the product to improve, which essentially boils the argument down to "I want you to make the product better, but I don't want to help you do it in any way. I don't want you to look at how I use the product to find out how it could be improved, either." That just seems wildly self-centered and antisocial.