My model for this is that the top dog tries to change the landscape to serve their own interest, which makes them the bad guy. The underdog naturally opposes those changes, which makes them seem like the good guys, even though it's actually just self-serving. A defense. The underdog may even go the extra step and market themselves as the one who's on the user's side, the champion of privacy. I fell for this with Apple a few years ago. But really, all these entities are amoral and just looking for the best available path to pursue their own goals, and any decision made by any of them exists in the possibility space for all of them. It's not really trust that you should give them, it's an acknowledgement that they are (for the moment) the lesser of several evils.