The way I see it is that folks are becoming peasants or serfs. They are doing it voluntarily, and are almost solely motivated by convenience. Google (and the rest) talk and act like obsequious servants (one outfit even called themselves "Ask Jeeves" after the greatest fictional valet in English literature!) but they are more like drug pushers: they do not actually care about you, they just want your money/data. The free stuff they give you is not altruistic, it's to hook you.

I know that a lot of good and earnest people work at Google (and the rest) but that doesn't change the nature of the beast. If anything it makes it more pathetic that these good people are powering the corporations that are subjugating the masses. They are the ones that hear the sad stories on the back channels (official support is nearly useless, by design!) and intervene with the "Powers that Be" to fix problems here and there. But by easing the pain of some people they reinforce the dependency of all users. (I could go on about the psychological impact of intermittent rewards and capricious authority on conditioning people to obey, but I'm not an expert and anyway it's really depressing.)

So, we have been hoodwinked by pushers, we have voluntarily given up our let's call them "rights and responsibilities" to these unelected quasi-anonymous semi-authoritarian organizations that are not beholden to us directly in pretty much any way, and we are "fine, just fine" with it right up until they flush our digital lives down the toilet.

> Should we own the free services that we've paid for with money and data?

No. What are you a commie? Seriously though, you own what you own, you didn't pay for anything, and what do you want to actually do anyway? Pass laws that claw back some of your autonomy? Why give it up in the first place? Convenience. Bottom line: you're looking for ways to make other people pay for your laziness.

> Do we own our identities?

Both ownership and identity are abstract mental concepts. In contrast, rights, laws, contracts, Terms of Service, etc. are all part of the vast and ancient mechanisms we employ to manage real world assets and relationships. You can talk back and forth all day but in the end "get it in writing".

> Do we own our phone numbers, emails, handles, PO boxes, addresses?

Again, these are mostly philosophical concepts. If you want to discuss them in concrete terms we have to talk about laws, etc. For example people found it desirable and convenient to be able to be reached by the same phone number even if they switch carriers, so we got enough clout together to make some laws about it, and compelled carriers to support it.

So we can pass laws to, in effect, create new kinds of "owning".

But again, the way I see it is that you're using these FAANG systems out of convenience or because they give you something you want and you don't care that they have you by the "short hairs" right up until they jerk the rug out from under you. Yet, rather than abandoning these systems and using something else, you want to pass laws to make them do what you want them to do. In other words, rather than rewarding the folks who are trying to do right by you by using their systems, you want to keep using and even improve the system that is exploiting you, even if you have to do it against the "will" of the corporation supplying the systems/services.

Is that right?

> What do you use for identity?

Cryptography. (I originally wrote "Fucking cryptography, duh!" but then I thought that might be a little over the top and changed it.)

I use ssh keys mostly.

> And what are your thoughts on this?

To recap: to me you seem like a lazy fool who should have known better. You seem to want a legal solution ("ownership" is a legal concept) rather than just using some other service(s) that won't screw you over.

> Am I overreacting?

Yes. People are hard at work building "identity" services that work under your own control. You should avail yourself of their efforts, stop using exploitative "services", and get on with your life.