Sci Fi generaly misses on how evil telepathy is

Well that depends on your definition of scifi, and your original example (Extant) is a TV show, which is why I used TV and movies as examples.

When I think of literary SF, I think of Iain M. Banks and Alastair Reynolds. Space colonization, generation ships, relativity, realistic stardrives, human evolution aided by tech, machine intelligences, artilects, machine substrate consciousnesses, the Fermi Paradox, etc. Those things frame the stories that tell us about human nature.

Urban fantasy, YA distopian stuff, steam punk, cyber thrillers, virtual reality movies = fantasy, not science fiction.

For example, a book that attributed telepathy to evolution would not meet my definition of SF. Way too many would-be SF novelists are ignorant when it comes to science, and just fabulate examples of futuretech without understanding how they would work, or even knowing if they would be possible.

If a story has characters who can communicate without words because they have implants or nanotech, and their minds are literally networked, that would be science fiction. It can be explained by science, and could be feasible based on what we know now.

Well clearly you grew up one way and cannot imagine what it would
be like to be different. If you had telepathy you would live in a
different world and you probably would not think it is evil at all.

Pretty soon there will be so much data out there on so many
that we will not even need telepathy, in 20 years there will be
the ability to have your own Google that can scour the web and
look up all the people you know, and know everything about
them. Either we get used to it or we try to have an impossibly
complicated discussion and agreement on how to regulate
technology ... which doen't look like it is going to happen and
has never happened before.

But that's not technically true, and you're simplifying an extremely complex problem.

First, our brains are not hardware, and they are not managed by operating systems. There is no feasible way of interfacing with the human brain and exchanging data, and no one is sure whether that will ever be possible. We're living in a time of unprecedented scientific understanding, and we still don't even know most of the fundamentals of how the brain works. When a doctor prescribes, say, an anti-depressant, he/she knows it might have an intended effect, but has absolutely no understanding of the mechanism by which it works. This is a huge barrier in any attempt to understand the brain, let alone record meaningful data from the human brain.

The second challenge is equally daunting -- learning how to translate brain signals into readable, reliable, and specific data, not vague suggestions of emotions or chemical reactions without context. Scientists have made some interesting progress when it comes to vague interpretations of brain signals, but actually reading thoughts is a completely different ballgame.