This is a common failure mode tech people get into in debates: finding an extreme example as an analogy. There's lots of obvious differences of context and differences of degree which get swept over by a very abstract kind of stripped-bare framework, "what's the essential philosophical difference here?" If someone can't see those differences it's almost pointless trying to enumerate them because honestly it feels like a disingenuous debate trick (my apologies if I'm wrong in that accusation).

You have an extremely wealthy corporation incentivized to collect massive amounts of very personal data about every part of you and you desires and psychology, incentivized and well-able to collect it in hidden and powerful ways across the web and build deep learning models of your psychology and desires, and store them in a place where it's possible for nefarious actors and governments to either legally or illegally access and use that information for unknown purposes. If you object to this characterization, fine, start with the objection, but it's an obvious characterization which I've presented, and it's obvious that this is what people are concerned about! Starting the conversation with "it's no different, philosophically, from your grocer knowing your love of chocolate" is such a non-starter only because it seems so disingenuous, like, how could you not see how your interlocutor sees it differently? It just presents so clean and abstract a little simplification, though, so it's handy for winning point in a debate setting.