> I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency.It's not that I disagree with you on the topic of transparency, it's that I think we can't really compare opinions on two very different topics as if they were the same topic. People complaining about too many subscription content providers are not really arguing for or against a monopoly. It's not the same discussion.
> And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user.
Granted, but I'm pretty sure that even if they did so, it wouldn't make much difference. I always refer people to Moxie Marlinspike's DEF CON keynote called "Changing threats to privacy" [1]. I would definitely recommend watching it in full, but the key takeaway from it -- for the purposes of this discussion -- is that it all boils down to choice. He talks about the way technology changes the fabric of the society, how it changes the way people interact, communicate and coordinate, and declining to participate in this new way of doing things exposes you to the "no network effect".
This is why it's not enough for Google and Facebook to merely inform people about what they collect and how they use it. As long as they're practically monopolies, they can disclose and inform and then go on just the same, because there's no other viable alternative and they'll work hard to ensure it stays that way.
The traditional way of dealing with an incumbent that is too powerful to reasonably compete with is to break it up, in hopes of diminishing not its power to compete, but rather its power to stifle competition.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk