Why are you using intentionally strongly connoted language like "be in charge", "locked up", and "silo"? A more accurate version of this statement is "This is people wanting to make someone else delete data that they have on their servers." You're also presuming that someone "owns" any and all data that pertains to them.
If it becomes effectively legal to surveil and store everything about anyone because you own servers, what kind of world does that lead to?
These are important questions that should be in the forefront before we're too far gone, which we're certainly flirting with.
There's probably some point at which the ways I use that data can be classified as stalking or harassment, but simply collecting it is allowed.
What about the embarrassing things other people post about John Doe? What if this harms his ability to provide for his family?
What about things fabricated by others to silence or overtake John Doe?
edit: (adding the point below)
Just because it's legal to collect, manipulate, and profit from this mass of information 'somewhere' doesn't mean that concerned groups of people shouldn't try to make that process harder or impossible.
Is "John Doe" a politician trying to suppress public discourse about a scandal?
If you do something embarrassing, and people are talking about it, it is absolutely immoral to use government force to prevent people from disseminating information about it.
> What if this harms his ability to provide for his family?
Of course, think of the children. We must suppress any information that could negatively affect a hypothetical child!
> what kind of world does that lead to?
A world where public discourse is more conveniently indexed? Be explicit with your concerns.
From where I stand they are trying to take advantage of the murky definitions around data retention and various policies applicable to personally identifiable information to side-step certain restrictions in various countries that have much stronger policies around use cases of such data.