Doesn't it?

The technology exists to build it. The pipelines exist to populate it. The marketing engine exists to leverage it for targeted delivery of content.

And yet, somehow, nobody's built it?

How sure are you of that?

▲

pj_mukh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?

	▲	ben_w 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> How would it be monetized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook > And if it has been, where can I buy this? Depending on your preference: their advertising portal, or a stock broker.

▲

r_lee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

and the technology exists to spy on everything you do in every single way, ignore gdpr, ignore all kinds of privacy acts, in fact you can also stalk people and find out where they live and break into their homes and look through their stuff and plant hidden cameras and other fun stuff

you can do that, but you have no clue as to why people/companies don't tend to do those things?

▲

john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-]

it is sort of funny that most of your examples of things companies "tend not to do" end up on the news fairly regularly.

big tech ignoring gdpr, ignoring or working around privacy protections, their technology being easily abused for stalking or harassment with no effort put into curtailing bad behavior, location data being bought and sold, etc.

i think the only thing from your list i haven't seen in the news in the last couple of months is employees of big tech doing break & enters.

(and this is all before we even approach the topic of data breaches!)

	▲	r_lee a day ago \| parent [-]
		they still don't just completely ignore regulations, like do we really think they just don't apply to them? we're talking about meta supposedly using facial recognition on the glasses to build a master database of faces or something like if I was Zuckerberg I would not want to do that, it would lead to a congressional hearing and all kinds of lawsuits I'd imagine. like where do we draw the line on plausible? or do we just go and say yeah meta must be spying on everything and feeding everything to a database where they sell everything about you like what about CCTV backups or robo vac camera feeds? should we assume that companies are deliberately sending all the data so they can sell raw video feeds and they just don't tell you? I'm not counting in incompetence and data breaches, I'm talking about intentional stuff