I commented to respond to phrases like "our data", which itself is a framing.

> Then let's also remove the charged term "natural."

We can call it the default state of affairs, if you like. Because there is a default, here.

Forget computers for a moment. If you tell me the statement "foo is bar", then the default state of affairs is that I now have heard from you that "foo is bar", and I can tell other people "foo is bar" or "X said 'foo is bar'". That's what I'm referring to as "natural" or "default".

There's an obvious extrapolation from that to facts like "X visited my site on this date" or "X follows Y".

Why don't we talk about policies and not analogies, here, since policies are both more concrete?

> Okay, well on the web when I use your website but then decide I want to change loyalties how do I get you to give me and then delete my data? Going beyond you, how do I get anyone to do that?

You ask nicely for them to provide such functionality, and then go "oh well" if they say no. And then you leave anyway, because unlike any strained analogy made in this thread, you're still free to leave, and you won't wind up killed or imprisoned for doing so. You're free to make use of any site you like, and stop using it whenever you like. And they're free to provide or not-provide any services they'd like.

> It seems that websites are determined to hold my data whether I want out or not

Try making that observation without using the phrase "my data" to describe "data about you" (or perhaps more generally "data that in some way mentions you"; it's not clear what you intend here, which is all the more reason to clarify). You might find that the resulting observation provides less support for your assertion. For instance, I could phrase an equivalent statement as "Websites are determined to maintain the integrity and completeness of their stored data regardless of unauthorized user actions." Sounds equally reasonable, and no less valid. The framing "my data" is presuming the point you have yet to prove.

> It seems that you and I agree that a good way to prevent tech feudalism

Still rejecting this framing device, and not agreeing to it as a premise.

> is to give people the ability to change loyalties.

I would say, more precisely, that people are free to use or stop using any site they like.

> In the case of user data that would seem to be some right to user data that allows me to collect it from you and request that you scrub it. Otherwise I'm not really able to change loyalties am I?

Of course you are; you can stop using the site at any time. You cannot, on the other hand, un-say what you've already said. While you may ask that someone pretend they've never heard it, I don't believe you should have the ability to demand that. You said it, someone observed and noted that you said it, and now you want their record of that observation destroyed.

(To be clear, here, I'm a huge supporter of privacy, and of services that provide such privacy. And I intentionally choose to use such services and avoid many others. I'd love to see more sites and applications designed to give users more control and agency over data they provide, and over how that data is stored and processed. I'd also love to see more distributed, federated services.)