They need to have a reason to care. Are they or people close to them in danger if they don’t put effort into increasing their privacy? What steps do they need to take to switch to alternatives, and does what they gain from taking those steps outweigh what they lose? Is your advice oriented around the context of their own lives, or are you telling them to do things because a bunch of people on the internet told you to?
These questions themselves are also very contextual, especially with different political orientations. For instance, if someone distrusts the government, then their definition of “danger” may include the government reading their conversations, which in this case it is a lot easier to convince people to switch to FOSS or more secure platforms like Signal (and I’ve convinced nearly everyone I know to use it, both conservative and progressive/leftist, because they distrust the government and large tech corporations). Whereas if someone thinks the government is alright, then they won’t give a shit. So I’d say that considering and discussing their political beliefs and making sure they align with valid reasons to make changes is an important step before telling them how they should do things.
The big question here is how does big tech use our info that makes it important to keep them from having it? Here, political orientation has a large impact on importance, for example:
Ads: Nobody loves ads, but some people tolerate them more than others. Liberals might see them as a necessary evil to provide services at a good cost. Libertarians might say they have the right to use their own hardware as they please and block them out of convenience. Progressives might say that they promote consumerism, and leftists might go further and say that they are one of the ways capitalists keep their control over society. So since data is used for targeted ads, that’s one area that can be argued based on political orientation.
Product improvement: Overall depends on their view of the company’s impact on society. Conservatives and leftists both see big tech as it exists currently as morally corrupt, others may see them as providing a useful service. If they think that big tech has a positive influence on society, then they are probably okay with their non-security critical data being used to improve the product, otherwise they might be more likely to want to avoid that happening.
Finances: Data can be used to personalize prices for large expenses, which is something that threatens everyone. The cost of healthcare, housing, education, and transportation is a major concern across all political orientations (and is why the Democrats lost the election by not doing fucking anything while the Republicans kept telling people that they would fix it by cutting government spending). However, people might also think that there’s nothing they can do about their data being used to make things more expensive or that if they try to resist that then it will cost more for them, so that’s an obstacle that needs to be considered as well.
Law enforcement: If the person is a target of the Trump administration and knows that, then their data being used against them is one clear motivation if they don’t think it’s too late to do anything. Otherwise, it depends on how much the person trusts the government and current law enforcement.
So overall, I would consider where they fit in this political categorization and use the reasons that align best with this. Challenging their political stances is also an option but requires a lot of other things to consider and probably won’t work well since a lot of it is rooted in fundamental values that are difficult to change.