I don't think the meme applies.

In the context of the US, we have a constitution which supposedly limits the powers of the government. Thing needs to be interpreted though. How we do the interpretation is constantly being negotiated.

Setting a norm for an interpretation that says when using a third party, people have abdicated their fourth amendment protections weakens the cases where the fourth amendment used to be clear (I think we aren't far from US government arguing it has the right to review the data on your phone without a warrant).

Think about TSA: normalizing the suspension of rights in order to do something as basic as traveling because of 9/11 allows for people in government positions to argue for suspensions in similar but adjacent places (eg banking, using the internet).

Another case is the way congress likes to play games with their rules of order (no more filibuster, no need for a supermajority, etc). Once these things are removed, they'll be used by both parties. It's short sighted for whoever is in power to choose expedience over the protection afforded by such things. And things like a supermajority requirement on some votes can be a protection against tyranny...but it can also be dispensed with.

I believe that it is the case that some constraints on government power only hold as long as we keep them universally in place.