An approach we can take on an individual level is to be mindful of the data we are giving up. If you are employed and in the process of job hunting, then stop "liking" the article headlined "10 Reasons why you deserve better from your company".
It is also not feasible. Sure, you can stop doing that, but there are millions of other 'tells' that you will give up through your actions online that can predict this information. Machine learning will pick up features you cannot control or even imagine that will accurately predict whether or not you are on the job hunt, no matter what you do to hide it short of just disconnecting from the Internet. Which is likely a tell itself.
Surveillance capitalism and government spying on the populace (enabled by the former) has gone far enough, to acquiesce to a degree like that is to give them an inch, and if you give them an inch, they will take a mile and we'll be back to where we started.
Yes it is. No less than if you got their postal address from their CV, parked outside their house and watched who came and went. After all they volunteered their details and the street outside their house is public... right?
This continuum fallacy stuff really just makes privacy advocates look like kooks.
You have to use the language other people use if you want to convince them, and normal people do not draw an equivalence between someone googling their name, and someone staking out their house, because there is an ocean between them.
You've clearly not read the article, in which a judge says that planting a tracking device on a car is materially different than tailing it.