I think the issue is mainly that people are multi-dimensional and referring to them as `consumers` boxes them into "thing x that buys our stuff and exists for consumption" instead of framing is as "this is a person that we developed technology because it will improve their lives (and give us money)". Profit is important for a business and helps drive efficiency and measure effectiveness, but I think it is still good use language that doesn't dehumanize the fact that the world is made of people and meeting the needs of people is ultimately the important thing, not simply number in Excel that represent our cashflow.

Even customer is a better word, since it represents a person who comes to you voluntarily for an exchange of value, not just consumption.

You're not the consumer. You're the product. The goal of these companies is to own a giant database of genetic information about the population to then sell that information to others.

If you were the consumer, you'd have to pay far more for a "test": these tests are just a method to get people to enter themselves in the database, and for them to sign their rights away, to 23andMe.

They are salespeople, and they should present us the fairy tale, not the technical lingo, for maximal effect.

It is quite easy to use "consumer" to create a seemingly plausible argument, which is interpreted quite different by many if you replace consumer with any one of the other words suggested.

It is probably because very few has consumer as a part of their self perception, hence many are likely to identify less, and empathize less with a group or person described as such.

It's not wrong in a technical sense, but it can be used to avoid a stronger public reaction to e.g people getting hurt by a business practices.

One might frame it like this: If my business transaction as a consumer ends up with the loss of an arm, I'm still the one who has to live with only one arm.

That makes you a customer!