The question whether altruism exists is, i think, beyond the scope of this discussion. Whether my parents loved me is also not relevant, although I can assure you that they gave me things out of love and ostensibly altruistically.
With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company.
With children, it is harder to argue without introducing other concepts, but I argue that it is not altruistic and has gene reproduction as the final goal.
If you haven't heard this argument before, you can look into "Genome" by Matt Ridley for a colorful explanation.
“With friends, I think, most people will agree there is reciprocity if not with money but with something else like company.”
Bzzt.
That is where your ideological map is attempting to define the territory.
Not all qualitative expression forms a transaction of quantitative proportions as (hyper)capitalism may have one believe.
I also sincerely doubt the discussion is somehow a debate on altruism, although when lensed through capitalist ideology it leaves few other classes as option.
Again, the slogans of hypercapitalism are rampant, as we have seen with both the “free lunch” and “you are the product” tropes that lay at the foundation of this thread.
Instead, it is likely a discussion of magnitudes and trust.
To an extent, all design insists on data and knowing. Take for example a shoe; we need to know your foot size and some other contexts, possibly such as usage.
Should we know your foot size or is this an abuse?
What if we are a shoe company and choose to register your facets in a database and across our stores? Is this a magnitude of qualia that creates a problem?
Now what if we choose to sell your shoe size to another vendor that may help you with other health choices? Another shoe vendor altogether? A company that isn't a shoe vendor?
Where do we draw the dividing line here on the magnitudes?
I don't pretend the answers are easy or clear, but they certainly seem worth exploring given the context.
Selling browsing data can be a serious issue of course, not the least of which seems perpendicular to the apparent direction of the original business model.
Who are they selling to? Insurance companies that care that you browsed about HIV medication or another software firm interested in security and the types of sites you visit?
Complex stuff for sure, but certainly not something to reduce to a polemic of altruism versus capitalism?
Some people really do things selflessly, and/or in term of social welfare. Not everything is "money" or "our own future".