You are following the logic to its natural conclusion and I find it infinitely better for the discourse when it’s spelled out like this vs vaguely pointing to a set of other concerns without concrete proposals!
My only concern with respect to discourse is that consent be not treated as a commodity that must be offered for a price, as if we were hostage to cancer and willing to trade anything, including our freedom, dignity, and integrity to be free of it.
Thiel et al. have described technological change as a means of forcing unilateral changes on an unwilling public. There is no basis for trust unless there exists a justice system that can appropriately discipline and restrain such people and their coconspirators, and force them to abandon their plans to inflict unwanted conditions on masses of people.
My answer to their proposal for what our society should look like, and what kind of technologies we should use is "no". It's not a trust issue, as in I would not accept the proposal from anyone, even if I did otherwise trust them. And if someone I trusted insistently proposed this, I would stop trusting them.
In any case, they don't accept refusal, but try this grotesque and condescending maneuver about "trust", as if I and many others were not really just saying "no".
No one who refuses to take "no" for an answer can ever deserve trust. If you are committed to convincing me to go along with your desires, and have no intent of accepting my refusal, you will never deserve trust, and I will never trust you.
These companies may have the power to do what they want anyway. But they will never have a clear conscience, or trust and support from me or anyone like me.