I think your view of the world is the lazier of the two--you're basically saying "let's not worry about the negative implications of the things we create as long as our intentions are good".
> Who cares? If you don't like these services, don't use them. Nobody is forcing you to use this device . . . If you don't like modernity, stop using modernity. Move to a homestead in the pacific northwest, never use a telephone, never use grid power, grow your own vegetables, grow your own cattle, and keep away from the evil, scary spies at gooooogggllleeee who are trying to...uh...give you better targeted advertisements? Or provide you with better search results?
Here's how your entire comment reads to me: "If you're interested in thinking about the future implications of the new things we're creating, please shut up and go live in the woods, because you obviously hate modernity. I'm really sick of people thinking about the future and how we might be creating things that will eventually hurt us. The market comes before foresight, and commentary isn't welcome; when you have potential concerns for the future, the only acceptable response is voting with your feet. Please do that and don't ruin our fun."
What you miss is that one can object to a single, potentially dangerous aspect of recent developments (personal information collection and exploitation) while embracing technology in general at the same time.
In creating new technology, it's essential that we examine the paradigms we're creating. If no one's doing that, we're almost sure to run ourselves into serious trouble sooner or later. There's a reason you look before you leap.
Which is lazy: choosing not to use awesome new technology because it has some potentially dangerous implications, or just using any new and seemingly convenient thing that people come up with and assuming it's got to be okay?