I'm saying they have vast mountains of data on people. They make enough money from it to be one of the most profitable companies on the planet. This is not h

I'm saying they have vast mountains of data on people. They make enough money from it to be one of the most profitable companies on the planet. This is not happening by accident. I'm quite certain that if I showed up to FB with a $50 million dollar ad campaign to run they would have quite the opposite story about their data knowledge. Marching dozens of people into the room promising they can slice and dice every bit of info down to the atom for my needs. Yet in court they want to claim they live by the seat of their pants. Its a deception tactic. Even though I'm sure its as you describe partly true in technical concept. I do believe that FB is the least privacy invasive of all the big tech giants for what its worth. Nothing against them. I actually think this case is an intentional aggravation to the courts to have regulation created on data collection. That way FAANGM can cement themselves as the offical national data brokers with costly startup regulation for any compeditors.