Obviously, people don't like invasive data collection. People don't like wars either. People generally have the kind of common sense that institutions and businesses lack.
My feeling is that you don't win fights like this by making a principled stance, then trying to get the public on board. You do it by finding wedge issues, where the argument is so strong that opposition is very difficult, then using victories there to build momentum for the next fight. That's what the civil rights movement did. That's what you have to do if you're fighting from a weaker position, and I think privacy will always be a weak value in western-style democracies because there are just so many compelling incentives for actors to erode privacy, and the threat of losing privacy is generally abstract, and only felt by already marginalized groups.
A few years ago the Norwegian Spy Chief was taking questions from the media. He actually pointed out that we should be more worried about the data collection of private companies than that of the Norwegian state. Their data collection was regulated and small in scope. Big tech data collection is seemingly neither.
Data collected by Big Tech can be misused by others. In many ways this is a significant security risk. Not just from data breaches, but also that people can be manipulated in groups. This is a significant problem and the easiest way to resolve it is to stop the tracking and ban surveillance-based ads.
Personally, I think dividing between the state and business is simplistic. Most businesses and most states have a symbiotic and codependent relationship, that is more or less explicit depending on the country you're talking about, but that's by the by. In practice, states generally have access to collected data through subpeonas.
In any case, I think mixing the two is not helpful in any shape or form. What we need is to regulate what private companies can do. I think that is enough scope for this particular discussion and I think this is such an important matter that it needs to be addressed.
My feeling is that surveillance states are more or less the norm, and it tends to become controversial as a sort of stand-in for other issues. So, for instance, the DDR's extreme surveillance apparatus becomes a sort of explanation for why this relatively bland state was actually a historic example of evil.
In england, there's a (very mild) controversy about the use of secret police to surveil activists - it became controversial because several of them had sexual relationships, and even children, while in their undercover role. One of the curious features of all this was who merited attention. One group of vegan restaurant connoisseurs, who met on fridays to review welsh vegan diners, discovered that one of their members was a police officer, for example.
This surveillance, which really had no bounds, including the surveillance of sitting government ministers (always labour, fwiw), is actually very typical, historically speaking.
So, while I'm broadly in agreement with you when it comes to the dangers of surveillance, I think we've all had and lost this argument in the past, and the fact is, if the state historically wanted to destroy or persecute a specific group, paper records were always enough. That means that if you want to make meaningful progress in the face of this information asymmetry, you have to find wedge issues.