I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.
What difference does it make under your argument whether they are trying to monetize the data or not? As long as they have your data, it's at risk. It's the same for Apple and Microsoft as it is for Google and Facebook. That Tim Cook pretends not to understand it doesn't mean we have to buy his misguided marketing speak.
I did say not to trust anyone. But there is a certain point where you are going to need to trust a service provider and intent and actions matter a lot at that point.
They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society.
Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement.
> They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society.
Advertising doesn't just "connect buyers and sellers" but can also generate demand for products that are worthless otherwise. The diamond industry is the obvious example. You might say that this stimulates the economy but I would argue it's an example of the broken window fallacy.
