I'm still confused by the direction of this argument. The platforms give away junk food that rots the mind, because doing so makes them a great deal of money. Your suggestion is that they should want to make less money. But you don't have to use them. If we wait for surveillance capitalism to suppress itself by ceasing to want what it wants---rather than freeing ourselves from the platforms instantaneously, as you can do---are we cheating ourselves irrationally? If the wealth of the platforms depends on the parasite with the mind of God, which is also now being also assisted in infecting the human race by despotisms that find it as useful for reducing freedom as the platforms find it for increasing their wealth, aren't you also going to wind up committed to asking those despotisms please just to want less power?

This doesn't seem a promising line of thought for a lawyer. So perhaps in order to advocate for or fight for freedom in the 21st century it will be necessary to use software differently, to learn, teach, and conduct our technological lives the way you want, rather than the way the platforms offer. That's the argument I am advancing. You may not agree. Out of the disagreement a terrific next draft could be made.