This draft combines as set of general exhortations about the importance of reading privacy with an apparently specific argument about browser cookies. But it does not clearly connect its two subjects. It's clear how to improve.

First, why not offer the reader an actual explanation about "cookies"? You can explain in a few words how the statelessness of the original hypertext protocol requires an additional mechanism for session continuity, therefore why the browser becomes the manager of session maintenance information in the form called a cookie. That leads directly to an equally simple explanation why indiscriminately holding and retrieving state information tokens for web servers compromises the interests of readers in the maintenance of their privacy.

Having given readers the accurate technical information missing in this draft, you are then in a position to explain equally simply what the reader can do about the problem. Recommending use of a browser not made and distributed by a data-miner is straightforward. Explaining how any such browser manages state information will both give users reason to adopt one (you are already using Brave, right?) and provide a basis for them to seek more information about other tools (AdBlock Plus, NoScript, TrackMeNot) that they might want to explore. How much of your general rhetoric you still want to include after providing that information, the next draft can show. Organ donation, on the other hand, which has nothing whatever to do with the subject and seems to have fallen into the existing draft by random motion, can depart.