I'm doubtful it will, because that conversation is rarely productive. In the US, opting out of consumer credit is a privilege of the wealthy or an inadvertent misfortune of the unbanked poor. A determined person can attempt to follow through, but they will encounter issues renting a professionally managed apartment, receiving pay, buying a car, or buying a house. And because of the prevalence of rewards credit cards, people paying with cash will miss out on kickbacks that effectively reduce the price they would have paid for goods and services.
While it's tempting to consider consumer credit a convenience, the shift in ability and expectations makes consumer credit a baseline and its lack a detriment. This is not unlike how an automobile was a luxury item a hundred years ago, eventually enabling settlement patterns to shift away from needing to be dense and close to public transport, but now most of the US needs automobiles to travel between home, work, and services. Because of the prevalence of cars, there's a large pool of customers (or renters, or workers) available to any particular establishment, so losing access to one's car will rapidly deprive them out of opportunities, housing, and jobs. This is also similar to the way requirements for educational attainment rise over time, or how the rise of two-income households has meant that one-income households are finding themselves at more and more of a comparative disadvantage.
Surveillance of public streets is an unfortunate matter, because there's no realistic choice to opt out. One can be staunchly opposed to them, but avoidance is difficult and often draws even more attention.
The 'data factory' issue is distinguished from these quandaries precisely because opting out is attainable and within reach, subject only to (the still-high bar of) convenience and social fashions, as opposed to some inconvenient economic reality.
While it's tempting to consider consumer credit a convenience, the shift in ability and expectations makes consumer credit a baseline and its lack a detriment. This is not unlike how an automobile was a luxury item a hundred years ago, eventually enabling settlement patterns to shift away from needing to be dense and close to public transport, but now most of the US needs automobiles to travel between home, work, and services. Because of the prevalence of cars, there's a large pool of customers (or renters, or workers) available to any particular establishment, so losing access to one's car will rapidly deprive them out of opportunities, housing, and jobs. This is also similar to the way requirements for educational attainment rise over time, or how the rise of two-income households has meant that one-income households are finding themselves at more and more of a comparative disadvantage.
Surveillance of public streets is an unfortunate matter, because there's no realistic choice to opt out. One can be staunchly opposed to them, but avoidance is difficult and often draws even more attention.
The 'data factory' issue is distinguished from these quandaries precisely because opting out is attainable and within reach, subject only to (the still-high bar of) convenience and social fashions, as opposed to some inconvenient economic reality.