Prior to 2013, we had enough evidence (Mark Klein, etc) that US Gov was actively conducting bulk warrantless surveillance of Americans (not suspected of a crime).
Back then, was there a dominant HN vibe about domestic spying (eg: yawn, apologist, anger)?
Once it became public, a lot of the narrative that you see now was developed behind the scenes by the people responsible for these systems. The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a playbook, and most people don't think for themselves, so they parrot this narrative.
It is 100% clear that domestic spying in the US is unconstitutional and unethical. There is no debate, and those that present it as a debate, or even that you are naive for not wanting it, are in service of the narrative.
To be pedantic on this one point, I don't think that's the case. Warrantless surveillance of citizens not suspected of a crime is a divisive activity. People will reasonably stake out a position. I certainly did and do.
Before people knew of the extensive surveillance, there was no division - you were nuts for thinking that our government was capable of trampling on the law to do something like this in secret. It's only after the revelations that the waffling around whether it was legal and whether it was ethical started to arise.
As in: Imagine the scale it requires, you’re stupid if you believe, what, that the NSA tapes all of our records?!? Put your tinfoil hat back.
I think I can infer that their education explanations didn't meaningfully change that dominant vibe.