If you are offered a free candy, which you don't like, are you doing what? Spit it out and accept no more or bravely suck it to the end and reach for another one? Can I take the first one? Fine.
If you are the owner of a business, there are sometimes a few helpful hints that can't be dismissed. But you would probably resist massive interference or even regulation, wouldn't you? As long as you act legal, you want to run your business the way you want, right? Fine.
Basically, nobody can force anyone to do something against their will, because we don't live in a dictatorship – at least not yet. Are we compliant so far? Fine.
Then why do you, as a user, lament and moan about the business practices of others and even call for policy to be regulated from there? Nobody's forcing you to eat the disgusting candy. Established and at least equivalent alternatives already exist. But then you come up with flimsy excuses to justify your addiction and inability to change. Most popular is the argument of missing mass elsewhere. Which makes you a dim-witted addict for whom even irrational reasons are not cheap enough. Awkward. Kinky.
If you waste your energy with stupid jabbering and not invest it in a change, no mass can be built elsewhere. The current top dogs were also boring and empty in their beginnings. So stop complaining about data collection and other unpleasant side effects, but reorient yourself. Right now! That' all!
Theoretically the safest place is where? In a prison! Fences, bars, thick walls and guards make sure that nothing gets in and nothing escapes. Tight rules ensure order and equal conditions – ideally.
How do politicians and many people get the idea to equate security with freedom and to promote it as such? Nobody would consider a prison as an institution of freedom – quite the contrary. Nevertheless, they strive with all their might to install one above everything and everyone. Are we humans already so degenerated that even hair-raising contradictions/antagonisms are accepted?
Exemplarily every anonymization is chased through the stable. On the one hand, every form of privacy is fully advocated as protection of the individual, on the other hand, it is outlawed as a risk to economic growth.
Unfortunately, politicians around the world are making wrong decisions. The perversion of intentions therefore triggers counter-reactions everywhere. Uprising and rebellion become a daily occurrence because corrupt politicians are no longer able to realistically acknowledge their own actions. In addition, a transparent citizen makes any manipulative work easier for them.
Anonymization speaks with split tongue. Means safety, but demands total nakedness. Submission is the price. Anyone who does not want to pay this price is excluded and, at best, thrown to the public as persona non grata. Private? Contradicts social welfare, ergo profit, and is therefore frowned upon.