> 1: Using customer data to improve your product, to make them happier paying for it, which makes $$$
> 2: Using customer data to sell to someone else or to sell the user's attention, which makes $$$
The extra level of indirection through a product that you deliver to the user that provides value to them makes a huge difference between these two ethically.
That said, I will admit that a company can move from 1 to 2 completely seamlessly, without the knowledge of the user. A bean counter, unscrupulous wallstreet exec, or changing priorities may take something that was intended to only ever be 1 and turn it into 2. This risk may be too high for you and that's your call to judge, but I find it hard to fault a company just for trying to improve their product.
I do wish more companies took Apple's "differential privacy" approach which allows the data collection technology itself to draw a hard line between 1 and 2 that can't be crossed invisibly.
Nor do I. So the argument thusly is -> why make the opt-in/out so difficult to manage (e.g. dark patterns)?
> to improve the features that the majority of people would find benefit in.
> This is likely all for product improvement and not for $$$.
Read those sentences again. They are doing it so they can make $$$, whether that means nefariously using your data for advertising/tracking OR improving the product, it 100% translates into making money for them. Improving the product means they continue to sell the product you continually pay for.
I think you're missing the overall point - any for-profit entity that tells you it won't infringe your rights, will eventually infringe on your rights. Especially one that takes $110B/yr in revenue. I'd be happy to share countless stories of for-profit entities, especially in tech, that do this.