I agree the "evidence is scant" as can be the case when NDAs are strong, which prevents people with categoric knowledge from commenting in depth. I agree conti

I agree the "evidence is scant" as can be the case when NDAs are strong, which prevents people with categoric knowledge from commenting in depth. I agree continued conversation is warranted, which is why a hobby of convincing people they're wrong about this could be past its shelf life. There is more than one source available, including certain TV set makers with specific language permitting this (and I don't mean the language that just permits voice recognition that gets people excited, much like language that lets a web site publish your comments gets people excited). Various denials are very carefully parsed for good reason. Thanks to incentives, I would encourage people to avoid being inappropriately dismissive of watchfulness, or evangelistically sure things are not happening, when it comes to advertising shenanigans. > if any of the tech giants are doing this, it'd be a pretty major violation of various laws/FTC agreements, etc This is not the interpretation of adtech. Without something stronger than GDPR or CDPR, very little data gathering and brokering, particularly when "anonymized" or blended into cohorts (especially if mapped "on device"), is actually a legal problem. Whatever anyone is selling, there is more than one buyer for, so generally all ads, even retargeted ads, are ostensibly to cohorts instead of individuals, which allows this. Of course, it is likely to be court tested eventually. // Finally, "might be time for a new hobby" is (a) not definitive, and (b) clearly humor referencing the hobby line in the post.