I think the difference there is that when Google and Apple started this years ago, there was a sense that "well, these are only phones, who cares".
Phones had a long history of being tied to contracts, and never felt as independently and absolutely "mine" as a PC you built yourself did.
Since then phones have become ever more important to every day lives, and now it is being applied to computers as well.
I'm not going to lie. I don't like Google and Apples approach either.
I would totally support legal requirements that all electronic products must have the ability to use their full functionality independent of any anyone else's server. I would also support regulation completely and totally banning the collection, use and monetization of data or information describing other people.
Google, Apple, Facebook, I don't care. All of them can burn to the ground.
I would also include cellphone carriers, internet service providers and even the government (most notably the NSA, but other branches as well, excepting maybe the court/prison system and any agency responsible for licensing of anything.) here as well, putting an end to metadata dragnets. There should be an end to facial recognition, and an end to the indiscriminate use of cameras in public places tracking peoples license plates.
Essentially any organization would be banned from collecting any data on any person without their explicit consent, and they must be provided an easy way to keep track of everyone they have given consent to, and to easily remove that consent whenever they feel like it. The only data that should be collected about a user is the data needed to make that service work for that user. This data should be prohibited from any analysis or monetization what so ever, and should be permanently removed as soon as it is no longer necessary to provide the user their service.
Furthermore personal data should not be allowed to be traded for free services. Services that are free must be provided with or without consent to use data.
Essentially the only users of personal data should be those conducting clinical trials, or research studies that benefit the public, both of which only with full informed consent.
The only other exception would be credit reporting agencies, but only for the express purpose of providing credit reports to potential lenders as requested by the individual who the data describes, not for marketing or other purposes.
All holders of personal data would also become explicitly liable (actual losses + serious damages awards) for any personal data which is lost to theft.
If any politician promises to pursue this goal, it almost doesn't matter what else they support. I would likely overnight become a single issue voter.
I wouldn't even stop there. I would require the discontinuation, destruction and deletion of any product previously created using data collected without users explicit consent, even if only as an input to machine learning algorithms.
You had me at "[a]ll of them can burn to the ground."
One or two of those points might be a problem, but in spirit, yes. That's unfortunately going to prove difficult to sell, as most Americans seem at best apathetic toward the basic ideas of freedom and privacy, if they're not actively working to undermine them.