Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

We live in a networked world. The internet is built for sharing things at little to no cost. We forward our emails, capture photos on cellphones and tweet opinions, all activities that leave a trail of data that can be collected without our knowledge. Privacy — the right to be free from unwanted intrusion — no longer exists in an absolute sense.

Regulating tech companies could create problems worse than the ones we seek to solve. The biggest companies — led by Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google in the United States . . . have all become both hugely profitable and vital to the global economy. The Department of Labor estimates that employment in the computer and information technology sectors in the United States will grow 12 percent from 2016 to 2026, much faster than the average for all occupations. The companies also provide income to millions of non-employees, including Airbnb hosts, Instagram influencers, eBay sellers, and Uber and Lyft drivers. If we constrict their fuel — data — we may hurt not only the quality, cost and speed of their services, but also the drivers of growth for the world’s economy.

Innovation will also suffer. Our culture celebrates entrepreneurship and accepts failure as part of the process. As a result, the United States has been the architect of the new economy. But privacy evangelists have made villains of the very companies the world emulates. Rather than debate how to expand this economic opportunity, they call for fettering it. The evangelists assert that regulating access to data or breaking up big companies will put that data back in our control. But this is naive. We share our photos, emails and other personal data daily. Almost any individual or company, big or small, can collect and misuse it. Size doesn't make a difference.

If safety is the actual goal of protecting privacy, consider this: Large tech companies may be our best line of defense against hackers, state surveillance and terrorists. These companies have the talent and resources to match well-funded and sophisticated adversaries. As the threat of cyberwarfare grows, shouldn't we consider whether it would be prudent to break up companies that are our best allies against foreign and criminal intrusion? . .. Consumers, on the other hand, potentially can have more influence over these companies. When those companies violate the public's trust, the news travels fast — often on the platforms themselves — and people stop visiting the sites, causing them to lose revenue. .. . If we untether ourselves from the old paradigms, we can open our minds to real solutions to expand opportunity and innovation while ensuring our safety. Where privacy is actually the issue, our laws should focus on deterring companies, institutions and individuals from misusing data to cause actual harms, such as slander, harassment, human trafficking, discrimination, fraud and corruption.

The big tech companies are neither heroes nor villains in this narrative. They create jobs and render certain jobs obsolete. . . . Progress is a messy business. Instead of trying to preserve what was, let's realistically debate the world we want.