There's plenty of ordinary evidence that corporations monetize data.

With the extraordinary claims, the extraordinary evidence usually needs to directly pertain to the claims.

It is not "extraordinary claims require other similar extraordinary things to have happened in the past". That is not evidence for your claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yes.

The point is that "corporations will monetize data" isn't an extraordinary claim.

No, that is an ordinary claim, and one that has plenty of ordinary evidence to back it up.

This company will monetize this data is also an ordinary claim (from history), but similarly needs evidence. "Companies have monetized similar in the past" is not evidence they'll do it in this case.

If you're a gambler, you should absolutely use that fact to inform your betting, but it's not evidence.

I'm not a fan of "regulators must allow actual harm before intervening" here.

There's plenty of ordinary evidence that corporations decline to monetize some data.

Example: https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465

"Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services. See below for specific examples of what we don't allow."

"Examples: Treatments for chronic health conditions like diabetes or arthritis, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling services for mental health issues like depression or anxiety, medical devices for sleep apnea like CPAP machines, over-the-counter medications for yeast infections, information about how to support your autistic child"

No, I have plenty of ordinary evidence in the form of my observations of the behavior of every other for-profit corporation across all of history.

Like if you claimed "pine sap is sticky" I don't feel compelled to challenge you and demand to touch it myself before I believe you. I've encountered plenty of pine sap in my life, and it was all sticky. I _have_ evidence that pine sap is sticky generally, so I don't demand _extra_ evidence that a _specific_ portion of sap is sticky.

Yes, and water is wet. But water and pine sap are to the best of our knowledge fairly homogenous, while companies are definitely not that.

Complex things are, well, complex, and absolutely not all the same.

They're not homogenous. The companies that don't make money go broke and cease to be. No sign of that from Google. They're buying the data to monetize it. If they were doing something unexpected like destroying it for the greater good they'd announce it.

The extraordinary thing here is if they bought the data to /not/ monetize it. That requires the evidence. Not the overwhelmingly expected thing. They are mutually exclusive alternatives after all. Go with the overwhelmingly likely one until you've got a solid reason not to. We don't here.