I don't think this is a very good article. She tries to address the primary rebuttal:
> You may argue there's a fundamental difference between corporate tracking and government surveillance. Corporations compete; you can switch services. Governments have monopoly power and can restrict fundamental freedoms.
By saying:
> This misses three key points: First, switching costs for major platforms are enormous. Try leaving Google's ecosystem or abandoning your LinkedIn network. Second, corporate social credit systems increasingly collaborate. Bad Uber ratings can affect other services; poor credit scores impact everything from insurance to employment. Third, Western governments already access this corporate data through legal channels and data purchases.
This is weak and handwavy.
* People leave Google's ecosystem all the time; it's practically sport here on HN.
* "Bad Uber ratings can affect other services" - is this theoretical or has this actually happened? Without specific citation, I'm calling bullshit.
* Poor credit ratings make it hard to get credit, yep. However, this area is heavily regulated and really only comes into play when you're asking someone to extend credit to you. It won't stop you getting on a train.
* It's not clear what governments are doing with corporate data. She needs to be a lot more specific about the harms here.
Also, saying that social credit systems in China are "limited to small pilot cities" is not particularly reassuring. The pilot programs are what we should freak out about. When it's rolled out en masse it's too late.
> People leave Google's ecosystem all the time; it's practically sport here on HN.
That supports the original argument if anything. If "Here's how I did X" generates interest on HN, it's quite likely that X is very challenging for the average person.
The corporate stuff gets weird too as ... what does leaving entail exactly?
There's no sure thing to be an alternative that is actually different.
I'm reminded of the SCOTUS arguments about cellphones and tracking, or just technology in general (the actual case(s) aren't so relevant as the arguments).
The argument at one point was that since you're carrying a cellphone or using a computer in some way that tracks your location you made a choice and that end result might be to just give up your right to privacy / location data because you chose to carry a cellphone.
Fortunately a few judges recognized that cell phones aren't just an accessory you pick and choose, they're part of daily life now, to operate in society you generally will need / want one, accordingly you should be able to do so without giving up some rights.
Unfortunately, the same arguments didn't carry over into topics like binding arbitration and so on ...