> "oh it's just database joins" is about like me ripping your arms off and describing it as "chemical reactions"

This argument is both inconsistent and counterproductive.

Inconsistent as in, the harm to me from having my arms being ripped off comes from you deciding to effect the intent to harm me. No photograph or x-ray of my arms can produce the intent of wanting to harm me.

Counterproductive as in, the "good vs bad" framing is pointless because it does not help with solutions. If your solution is to ban joins, you will have a hard time gaining traction for your cause. Strategic advocacy requires understanding axes along which you may be able to produce a coherent argument and gain leverage. "Ban joins" does not help.

The root-cause of all of this isn't evil government, or data analytics, or joins, or even evil company.

Its data collection. Its privacy. If were waiting around for the day people start acting ethically, we'll experience the heat death of the universe.

Governments can always turn evil. Companies can always be compelled. People can always turn evil.

We need to not give them the ammunition. We've cornered ourselves into a situation where we sacrifice our data and privacy, and we are forced to blindly trust it will not be used against us.

If we do not collect data, we cannot have data breaches. If we do not collect data, we cannot have mass surveillance. If we do not collect data, we cannot have wiretapping.

We've simply allowed and encouraged tech companies to collect as much data as humanly possible. That starts with Google, Meta, et al. We then trust they will not abuse it.

But they certainly can, and they certainly will. What is done now cannot be undone. We cannot take back data immortalized. But, what we can do is prevent new data collection.

Use private services. Run software locally when feasible. Deny analytics. Block advertisments. Use end to end ecryption. Etc.