Paul,
I understand what you are saying. I am not sure I agree - but! - this is not to say that I disagree. I just don't have my mind made up on this matter. I need more info and more time to think.
Question is - how much of the public control should there be? Google is a private company. They offer their services for a fee - in return you give up certain control of your information. It is important that this is clear - if not, then it could be considered a lie and a breach of contract. But if it is clear, then I do not see a problem. Nobody forces one to use Google. Of course, in a free market situation one can find oneself in a situation when there are no reliable services. This is especially true in ecosystem-like services, where popularity of the service is proportional to its quality. So this is really confusing stuff to think through.
What I believe I have a more clear position on is on a certain degree of separation of private businesses and the government. This is where I am sure we need tighter public control. We don't want a situation when a private business has political power. But even here it is not always easy to say how much of a separation should there be. Last case with FBI and Apple shows how complicated these situations could get.
My main message is to talk about it rationally and - very important - come up with rational solutions. Writing an email that "I scramble information on my LinkedIn and abandon it because Microsoft bought it" is not a rational solution to the problem. It is, at best, an ideological pronouncement. A way to show what side of the fence you are on. But it does not solve anything. It just restates the problem and restates it in a form that people like myself, who would like to discuss it, have to work through a certain layer of ridicule to get the conversation even started.
My main message is not that the problem does not exist. And I also straight out say - I am certain my position on this problem today is still vastly uninformed. Thus, my conclusions are very preliminary.