In the same way, many would argue leaving Google or Facebook requires they give up on key features and benefits of living on the Internet. Like, you know, talking to your friends.
I don't see what sense it makes to worry about that before it actually happens. Especially when there's no reason to believe it is going to happen.
>>I recently received a "terms of service" update from Comcast, with the notification that they can now "monitor and record anything going through the network. Including, but not limited to: audio recording, video recording, ..."
I mean, look, if they're not going to do it, then why did they lobby so hard and successfully to do it?
Frankly, I have a had time imagining that this won't eventually happen. And sooner rather than later.
Not to mention there's a LOT of useful stuff on the internet that's not hosting on sites with Facebook trackers.
Today. But in terms of risk moving forward, I think ISPs are way worse. Two reasons:
1) I really can choose not to use Google/Facebook. There exist very solid, privacy-respecting alternatives for every service these two companies offer. It's a matter of consumer choice.
This is not the case for ISPs. If my (one) local "high-speed" ISP demands that I install a new root cert so they can MITM all my traffic, my choices are to a) capitulate, or b) find a way to live with very low-speed DSL/dial-up.
Monopoly power backed up by a vast network of cables has way more staying power than monopoly power backed up by social network effects (FB) or superior software offerings (Gmail).
2) You might argue that history demonstrates we don't have to worry about ISPs demanding to MITM customer traffic. But Historically, ISPs weren't incentivized to snoop because of regulatory barriers that prevented collection/use of data for advertising purposes. In the case of US ISPs, changes in regulator landscape suggest that past behavior doesn't guarantee future behavior.