I'm not sure Chomski or Snowden or even myself would agree with you there. While people have foolishly given a LOT of information to these companies, do not forget that these companies claimed openly verbally and in writing that they would not sell your information to third parties in an identifiable form. Now I suspect that is still true as the info to my knowledge wasn't sold, it was GIVEN to the NSA without any specific cause against any individual or even group of individual, because they were taking it ALL for use later to lookup anyone who challenged the status quo. It was never about selling data (as you put it), it was about giving (paid or unpaid) information it it's raw form, which identifies individuals which the public was assured in various ways would not happen. Of course they sell collective data, and most assumed this was going on.
The type of tyranny this represents is monumental and completely undermines the idea of any sort of democracy. Reason being, they can interfere with your opinion far more easily (and they already are) and target key individuals who might lead a group with a specific set of opinions those "upstairs" don't want expressed. An example of how this could be used can be seen in Watergate, where the Republican party did "rat fucking", sabotaging the political opposition, which destroys not only democracy, but in spirit a free market and certainly free speech.
If these companies did "all they could" to protect privacy, they would have told the agencies "no", possibly shut down the company and destroyed the data (not necessarily in that order). Sure, the NSA would have retaliated but given the huge public attention this would have gotten worldwide plus these companies are to this day contributing lots of money to various politicians, it probably would have gone the way it did with Clinton with her illegal email server: a public scolding, but nothing more. But the added benefit to the public would have been the NSA would have brought this project to a halt for fear of PR and economic repercussions. However, their only concern (as Greenwald pointed out) was their wallets and public perception. TrueCrypt people DID do everything they could to protect privacy by shutting down rather then building in backdoors and by doing so, told the public what was going on (without saying so, so they were gagged under threat). Of course a law was introduced later saying that you can't shut your company down if you get certain requests, which is basically exercising eminent domain on private enterprises; in essence, government slavery removing the very concept of private property or enterprise. Basically, a government state where the government owns everything. The true test of a company being prepared to do "everything it could" to protect privacy or anything, is it's demonstrated willingness to sacrifice itself (like a soldier in essence) to protect something important to it. No company listed on Snowden's chart (and certainly not yahoo) has shown it's willingness to do this. Apple so far, has come the closest of any worldwide corporation in recent history. It's not enough, but a step in the right direction even if it's stance was in the name of self interest.