Basically it isn't about having anything to hide but the instability of democracy and what power bad actors have.
Do I have anything to hide from Google? Not really. But do I want that same data that Google has to be in the hands of someone like Putin? No. I don't even want it in the hands of the NSA. The issue is that if we say that ads can manipulate people to buy things, why can't they manipulate people to do things like vote or divide. Russia's strategy since the Cold War has been to divide and prod The West, to sow disruption. That disruption has caused consolidation of power but also makes it difficult for coalitions to get things done.
It is clear that anger generates more clicks, so why is it unrealistic to think bad actors can use that data to better divide us and sow discontent?
The next factor is that democracy relies on a distribution of power. Data collection is a means to consolidate power. There's the term "turnkey tyranny" that's thrown around. The reason isn't because we think a tyrant is going to come to power and destroy our way of life, but rather that we recognize that such a thing is possible and want to ensure that such actions would be infeasible if a malicious actor gained power. In democracy power is distributed. This has pros and cons. But the point of distribution is so that consolidation is difficult and we can never have a monarch or tyrant.
So it has never been about having something to hide (which btw, do people know they are referencing Goebbels?), but about stability in democracy. Distribution of power that was inherent to the system in the past is no longer built in. Technology has changed and enabled things we never previously imagined.
Sadly I've come to the conclusion that people don't really actually care about the stability of democracy so long as they have food on the table and a warm bed at night. No matter the fact that a stable democracy free from the tyrannical rule of a monarch is what gave rise to their entire lifestyle as they know it. But people forget so quickly what we sacrifice for democracy. It's almost irrelevant, though. Our once pristine western democracy has been slowly eroded by the forces free markets. So I don't know who's crazier, the people who seem to care less about the values required to maintain a democracy, or the people who still think we participate in one...
I believe you are right. In fact, I think China serves as a perfect example of this (so does 1930's Germany, but I don't want to draw too much parallelism there). When there's massive growth and you're substantially better off than your parents, who cares what the government does? Clearly you're doing better, so they must be doing good. Right?
I think part of the unrest we have is that we're NOT better off than our parents. But another key component is that covid made it so that we have to worry about food on our table and we have an abundant amount of time to worry.
At the same time this is a great opportunity to talk about democratic stability. Discussing things like why privacy matters and not just to bad guys or with the silly "you wear clothes" analogies. It is also a great time to talk about structural reforms like switching to better voting methods, such as STAR (see my comments for rants on why you should not use IRV/"RCV"). At this time people have the time to think and research, but there is also the drawback that it is hard to think when you are worried about food and future. But this time to also talk about solving problems while they are small. If the Great Depression taught us anything it is that those people learned a lot about frugality but their children forgot. Luckily it appears that each time we do this we get slightly better (think like a damped harmonic oscillator). So don't give up hope, help the dampening coefficient.
Basically it isn't about having anything to hide but the instability of democracy and what power bad actors have.
Do I have anything to hide from Google? Not really. But do I want that same data that Google has to be in the hands of someone like Putin? No. I don't even want it in the hands of the NSA. The issue is that if we say that ads can manipulate people to buy things, why can't they manipulate people to do things like vote or divide. Russia's strategy since the Cold War has been to divide and prod The West, to sow disruption. That disruption has caused consolidation of power but also makes it difficult for coalitions to get things done.
It is clear that anger generates more clicks, so why is it unrealistic to think bad actors can use that data to better divide us and sow discontent?
The next factor is that democracy relies on a distribution of power. Data collection is a means to consolidate power. There's the term "turnkey tyranny" that's thrown around. The reason isn't because we think a tyrant is going to come to power and destroy our way of life, but rather that we recognize that such a thing is possible and want to ensure that such actions would be infeasible if a malicious actor gained power. In democracy power is distributed. This has pros and cons. But the point of distribution is so that consolidation is difficult and we can never have a monarch or tyrant.
So it has never been about having something to hide (which btw, do people know they are referencing Goebbels?), but about stability in democracy. Distribution of power that was inherent to the system in the past is no longer built in. Technology has changed and enabled things we never previously imagined.