Network effects mean that there are few pragmatic options left. The GP may well be free to use alternatives but at what cost? Should they be selecting future employers based on the employer's choice of software?
I may well be free to go live in a (digital) cave but presenting it as a viable choice merely exacerbates the existing problem.
True, but there's a difference between 1. your employer having a bunch of information about you and 2. your employer signing up to a ToS with third parties that effectively hands over all your info to them.
Point 2 is probably not unusual but were starting to see (imho) more pernicious attitudes. Examples include the current Windows discussion, where your employer may be perfectly happy to sign (on the employees behalf) that your data be sent off to Microsoft (and used for whatever Microsoft deems 'necessary'). There was also the announcement of Facebook at Work, which I'm sure would be more than happy to cross-correlate the 'work' you with the 'personal' you, in order to 'provide a better service'.
In both these scenarios, I'm sure the company will act to protect itself from exposure, but it's unclear what choices the employees really have.
I downvoted you because I think this is an uncharitable reading of the parent comment. Furthermore, one could argue that Microsoft alone is not responsible for the creation of an opt-out privacy-hostile software ecosystem, so perhaps your statement is also hyperbolic.
This is a hyperbolic statement. Here's a fixed version: "Microsoft has created an opt-out privacy-hostile software ecosystem"
The world is not Microsoft. You're free to use alternatives.