I disagree with the “targeted compromise” framing because it can sound cleaner than it works in practice. “Collect only what’s necessary” raises an immediate problem: necessary according to whom? Companies routinely redefine necessity around profit, efficiency, or risk management. Governments expand “necessary” during crises and rarely fully retract powers afterward. Clear consent is also weaker than it appears. Most people do not negotiate data practices; they accept terms under time pressure, platform dependence, or lack of alternatives. Is that meaningful choice, or administrative compliance? The sharper issue is governance, not moderation. A system can have audits, opt-outs, and limits on paper while still producing large-scale behavioral tracking. So I would push the question further: Which actors do you trust to hold intimate data? What penalties exist when limits are violated? Should privacy be treated as a negotiable convenience or a default right that requires a high burden of justification to override? If you had to choose one domain where compromise is most dangerous, I would argue government surveillance and AI profiling deserve the most scrutiny because scale and persistence make mistakes hard to reverse. Do you agree?

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?