I know that expecting a huge, decentralized mass of consumers to come up with a coherent philosophy of their desire/values is a big ask, but that's why I push back on this stuff. Because "fuck companies for monetizing my data" side-by-side with "I'd never pay for a website in a million years" doesn't leave much room for economic maneuvering by tech cos, and you end up with lots of lip service, lots of PR nonsense about how respectful Meta is of your information, without substantial change, because substantial change is not economically viable. It's a dead-end. Non-starter. By making impossible demands of a company, you force them to bullshit you to appear compliant.
Consumers of these products are in a collective bargaining situation with social media providers. If we can figure out, and coordinate around, a specific set of grievances—types of data we don't want used, or ways we don't want it used—or come up with any plausible counter-proposal, then we'll end up in a better place than if we are vague and incoherent and contradictory in our collective bargaining. The more clear and coherent we are with our grievances and demands, and the more economically feasible these demands are, the easier it will be for startups that actually, substantially address them to emerge.
Instead we shrug off this coherence work and expect companies to not just satiate our desires, but to read our minds and figure out what are desires are for us. And we're outraged when they fail to figure out parts of our own psychologies and wants that we ourselves have failed to understand. It's this infantilism that led us to this place of data tracking and advertising to begin with.