I don't understand this description of the situation. Facebook isn't requesting information from users: they are providing it when they transmit and receive information intermediated by the platform. So there's no "overrequesting" issue. Nor have you explained why it is Facebook's particular responsibility to disclose how the Web and smartphones work in general, for example. So far, the argument proceeds under the assumption that consent is relevant so long as it is actually informed, but this appears to be coupled with an implicit conclusion that no one who was properly informed would give consent.

This seems to be about adjectives, like "definitive" and "impactful," if that is indeed a word at all. Why isn't the reader learning the difference between transactional consent and socially-established standards of care, rather than the difference between "impactful" rules that "make a lot of sense" and apparently impact-free consent that "seems like a fairly optimal system"? The reader comes to you for clarity of analysis, not comparative evaluation of metaphors.

And yet, taking a fully legislatively-driven approach to better data privacy policies has its own hindrances; namely, the speed, or rather lack thereof, with which lawmaking bodies operate. Technology evolves at a rate that the law has demonstrated no ability to match; a recent amendment to New Jersey’s data breach notification statute was literally outdated before it went into effect due to its lack of language addressing alternative identification methods such as biometric data. As it stands, lawmakers are not capable of either understanding the nuances of technology nor keeping pace as would be necessary to provide truly comprehensive laws.

This is a straw man. Contemporary administrative law isn't built around statutes that regulate in detail. Agencies are empowered to make and update rules, and to act against those who break the rules. Expertise and responsiveness to change in conditions, along with broad contacts with interested and affected parties through public process, have been sought in this way since the Administrative Procedure Act. Why would privacy law be made in a fashion that hasn't been used in the better part of a century?

The only logical way to do so is to match laws to industry standards and address the problems from the industry side. Unfortunately, industry is resistant to change - and like global warming, it seems unlikely the big players will act to their own detriment, even if such detriment is only perceived.

So there is legislative action to require industry to face the democratic demand. That's where you began. Where did you end up?

The way to improve the draft is to give clear structure to its argument. What is your idea that you are contributing to the conversation? Give a clear statement of the point at the top. Show in successive paragraphs how you come by the idea, that is, how it develops out of the conversation you are joining, which includes not merely the fact of, but the actual contents of, legislation now being considered. Then you can show how your view of the matter differs from the other positions you think it valuable to consider. This enables a conclusion that the reader can both see as a reasoned outcome of your participation in the discussion, while also having directions she can travel on her own, enabled by but not determined by the teaching of your essay.