The article points out that they also might charge you more than the person next to you if you make more money than them, which (ignoring the privacy concerns momentarily) actually seems progressive?

It's kind of funny seeing unabashed capitalism attempting to achieve similar equalization goals to progressive tax policy. But I guess this has always been the case with market segmentation anyways (e.g. paying ridiculous amounts extra for 1st class on the airplane, or a special paint job or trim for your car).

I think the main difference is what people consider fair, transparent, and respectful of privacy. Additionally, people want to feel like they have a choice.

Would they charge me less if I was poor? If they comped a family of fours meals because they were below the poverty line I would argue it was almost progressive, but they are only doing this to extract more money from people who they think might not be as price sensitive.

Of course they will and if you are homeless and hungry wearing cardboard shorts, they will give you a bed and free feed.

At least here in California (maybe the whole US) I think there is a law requiring the government to give our phone numbers to politicians to spam us.

Seems crazy until you realize politicians write the laws