Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can fight against it by refusing to use these websites? If you can't do this, perhaps because a big _majority_ of users don't care enough to support this kind of ecosystem shift, what makes you think a majority of voters would support this? (And if not, why would you want to force your view on them?) It's like legislating that people should only listen to Good Music and eat Healthy Food, as defined by some people…
Part of the job of lawmakers is, intriguingly enough, deciding what’s good for voters. This would be among those things. Would voters vote for this specific law? Probably not. But they probably wouldn’t vote out the representatives who wrote it either. And arguably privacy needs to be protected for the good of society.
If you believe that the 'good of society' is not what voters want, why bother with democracy at all?
(Slightly besides the point: I actually do agree that people behave like idiots at the ballot booth and don't know what is good for them in this context.
Luckily, people tend to be much more savvy when voting with their wallets or their feet. And as a society we would be well advised to encourage these latter two.
Eg by taking subsidiarity serious, and pushing as much decision making as possible to as local a unit as possible. Don't decide stuff at federal level, when the states can handle it. Don't let the states handle, what the counties can handle. Don't let counties handle, what the municipalities can handle. Don't let municipalities handle what people can do privately on their own.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
By pushing authority down the stack, you make the act of moving between states or even just cities so much more powerful and expressive.)