Your argument assumes privacy loss is irreversible and uniformly harmful, but that overstates the case.
First, the “one-way ratchet” framing ignores that societies do renegotiate data boundaries. GDPR, app tracking restrictions, data deletion rights, limits on facial recognition in some cities—these are examples of pushback changing incentives and practices. Data governance is not static.
Second, calling personal data a “valuable asset” raises a question: valuable to whom? Most individual datasets have limited standalone value. Their value emerges through aggregation. If individuals strictly withheld data, you would also lose benefits that depend on large-scale information sharing: medical research, fraud detection, traffic optimization, accessibility tools, and personalized systems that many people actively prefer.
You also argue companies have “zero incentive” to protect data because collection drives profit. That is too absolute. Companies face regulatory fines, litigation risk, reputational damage, customer churn, and operational costs from breaches. Their incentives are mixed: collect more data, yes—but also avoid catastrophic mishandling.
The strongest point in your case is autonomy. But even there, the issue may not be “more sharing vs less sharing.” It may be uncompensated, opaque, involuntary sharing versus accountable, transparent, user-controlled exchange.
A question back to you: if stronger consent rules, data portability, deletion rights, and profit-sharing mechanisms existed, would you still reject expanded data use on principle? Or is your objection mainly about the current power imbalance?
04:54 PM