[0] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
The telemetry is collected at time T, and your decision that you care must come before time T if it's to have any effect on the outcomes. After the telemetry is collected, and decisions are taken based on that telemetry, it's too late to opt in.
This reflect a common problem with humans that what they don't like is regret, but what we offer them as a fix is informed consent -- it turns out what they wanted to be informed about was really whether they would in future regret it, which we cannot know.
Now, as a democracy we "fix" this by just deciding that even if you refuse to participate in the process we don't get to claim that your interests don't matter. That feels like a reasonable price to pay for very important decisions like "Should we build a freeway across this land occupied by the people from this weird religious sect?" but it feels way out of proportion for something like, "Should I add more animated Emoji reactions to version X, or should I work on enabling the text-to-speech feature in group chats as well as one-to-one ?"
Laws like GDPR can help organisations stick to collecting only what they actually needed to know and not just "Everything because why not" - GDPR is why not. Did you just collect the full name of every user? You'd better have a damn good explanation of why you did that. Whether user has <4GB, 4GB-8GB or 8GB+ of RAM? Very easy to justify.