Meta's WhatsApp app will try to bypass Android VPN settings using Google Public DNS servers even when (a) the OS settings "Always-on VPN" and "Block connections without VPN" are enabled, (b) port 53 is forwarded to a local address,^1 (c) DNS settings under "Network details" for the router point to local addresses only and (d) "Mobile data" is disabled for the SIM and the phone has no access to cellular data (e.g., MMS will fail)
Even the Google pre-installed system apps don't do this
Meta's attempts to conduct surveillance go further than ignoring "opt-out". Meta tries to bypass Android's built-in VPN and the system DNS settings
I use a computer I can reasonably control, i.e., one running an OS I compiled myself, as a gateway for the phone so traffic destined for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 is blocked by the gateway's firewall
they have no fear of the current financial incentives, there has to a punitive quantity involved, and the mentality of any regulators has to catch up with present day.
fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. fines have to have potential to do real damage to, or destroy noncompliants, if there is going to be any deterrent.
contempt, is obvious, the chance of jail should exist in actuality, rather than a vague possibility.
If you read the report this is why I say network traffic with a Sec-GPC: 1 (GPC opt-out) should return a 451 automatically instead of a cookie, and how the Meta Pixel code can wrap a GPC conditional around execution. That's why they are terrified - fines don't matter, code does.
yes that seems to be workable, but then its thier code, and house techs you have to preempt. the problem seems to be one of, effectively compelling a change of code and heuristics.
im wondering what would be more effective.
1] desist or existentially threatening fines, or indentureship will occur.
2] you have a problem with code maintainence, we will take code maintainence into receivership, until you have demonstrated that you can maintain code in a legal framework.
That's a terrible idea though. It means that anyone who selects the "Do not track me" option will find that they can't access the content at all, which will quickly train users to never select "Do not track me".
> fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing.
Even those relatively small fines rarely get paid. Companies can tie up the judgements in the courts for years without having to pay a single cent. [1]
> The Data Protection Commission (DPC) is owed more than €4 billion in fines that have not been collected or are subject to legal challenge. The DPC hit companies – including firms in Big Tech – with more than €530 million in fines last year. However, just €125,000 of that has been collected so far, according to data released under FOI laws. Over the past six years, the commission has levied an incredible €4.04 billion in fines, mostly on multinational technology companies. However, of that total, €4.02 billion remains uncollected and just €20 million has been paid in fines so far. In 2024, €652 million worth of fines was levied, of which €582,500 has been paid.
Hopefully they hold off until the financial straw breaks and then they leverage their owed fines to claim ownership of these shithole companies completely.
Appends a source-url attribute at the end (404media).
I'm sure they're not doing anything nefarious with it, but it is a tiny bit ironic that there's a referral url like that associated with an organization that is speaking out about global privacy audits.
I'm glad they're doing this, and understand this is complex, but throwing out a "check the plank in thine eye before the sty in the others". I haven't really dealt with referral links like that, IIRC that's something 404 is sending as a referrer URL? Would it be prudent to reroute on the GPA sites such referral urls to strip them before sending back?
I always opt out if given the option and if not given the option I click x and close the site. However, unfortunately, I have assumed that they are already tracking me when the pop-up hits. This kinda confirms that is true.
We have 'get tough on X, Y, Z' things that don't impact me at all. You can dial 911 if someone assaults you in the US, but I don't know of a single resource to get law enforcement involved when I am digitally assaulted. I think that is a big part of the problem here. Nobody is actually taking the call to enforce this stuff.
The only reason I ever click reject is to open the devtools and count the ads cookies still set. I managed to turn that hobby into https://webxray.ai as a business.
There may be an opportunity here for a plugin that auto-reports violations in some way that can then be used in lawsuits against these companies. Obviously there are privacy concerns with something like this but there may be ways to anonymize the data or otherwise preserve privacy meaningfully. There is 'company X is doing bad thing' and 'company X did bad thing, provably, this many times to these people'.
For legal work you need a controlled forensic environment, this is evidence gathering in the same way a crime scene is. We've developed a lot of proprietary methods to ensure clean-room conditions.
That's not to say the idea isn't interesting, but in terms of legal proceedings, chain of custody with the forensic data is most important.
This report relies on several year old technology on our part, our more cutting systems are a few years beyond SOTA, and I can there's a lot more under the surface.
That entirely ignores and excuses the chain of decisions that lead to this problem. Removing it from the codebase today does nothing to dissuade them from doing something similar tomorrow
That's why webXray (https://webxray.ai) has perfected forensic privacy auditing - we catch every code change that has visible traces. I'll catch the same thing any way you do it - cookies, local storage, js obfuscated network payloads...no sweat. I'll go all day long.
Hi, I'm Dr Tim Libert, founder of webXray who did this audit. Happy to answer questions from YC'ers. [Note, stepping away for some mental health exercise, stressful day!]
I also want to push back on Google telling the press our California Privacy Audit is "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how [Google's] products work".
I'm the former head of Cookie Compliance at Google and I have the federal court filings that show their statements are not simply true, and Google knows it isn't true.
For the record, here are direct quotes from a federal court filing made by Google's "Data Protection Officer and Senior Director of Privacy", who stated that "If called to testify as a witness, [they] could and would testify competently to such facts under oath."
Here are those facts:
* "Due to Dr. Libert’s academic background focusing on cookies, he became one of the primary members of the team assisting with Google’s cookie compliance and governance efforts..."
* "Dr. Libert quickly assumed responsibility for aiding our in-house regulatory lawyers in addressing governmental investigations into cookies..."
* "Dr. Libert often worked under the guidance of in-house counsel to develop technical solutions to issues raised by privacy regulators..."
* "Dr. Libert was also responsible for the development of internal policies on
cookies and web storage. He drafted Google’s internal cookie guidelines in 2021 and early 2022, which applies to all cookies or cookies-like objects, and outlines processes on managing cookies, storing cookies, logging data associated with cookies, server protocols, policies on data collection, and data linkage..."
* "By developing the policy and conducting the audit, Dr. Libert gained insight into every Google-owned cookie deployed across Google’s web properties..."
* "Dr. Libert also proposed changes to how Google interprets specific definitions across its products’ various privacy policies. This included work on policies relating to analytics and advertising services used by third-party apps and websites..."
--
TLDR: Google can say what they want about me in public, but when they are under oath in a federal court of law, this is what they really say.
The GPC spec does not say "no cookies will be set" [1], and does not mention cookies at all. It merely provides a way for the user to indicate their preference that their information not be shared or tracked. The spec even says:
> In the absence of regulatory, legal, or other requirements, websites can interpret an expressed Global Privacy Control preference as they find most appropriate for the given person, particularly as considered in light of the person's privacy expectations, context, and cultural circumstances.
The CCPA [2] also never explicitly mentions cookies or forbids them from being set. The relevant passages about opting out on the sale of personal information are:
> a) A business shall provide two or more designated methods for submitting requests to opt-out, including an interactive form accessible via a clear and conspicuous link titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information,” on the business’s website or mobile application. Other acceptable methods for submitting these requests include, but are not limited to, a toll-free phone number, a designated email address, a form submitted in person, a form submitted through the mail, and user-enabled global privacy controls, such as a browser plug-in or privacy setting, device setting, or other mechanism, that communicate or signal the
consumer’s choice to opt-out of the sale of their personal information
How would you respond to their claim that you are fundamentally misunderstanding GPC, and that the spec and the law do not mean you never set cookies, they mean that you must honor the preferences expressed by the header in backend processes that involve tracking or sale of personal information?
To quote our report: At webXray we are experts in tracking technologies, and we work closely with in-house counsel, defense, plaintiff firms, and regulators. However, we are not lawyers ourselves, thus nothing in this report represents a legal conclusion. webXray was not founded to supplant the role of lawyers, courts, or judges. We were founded to provide clear, accurate, forensic data, without fear or favor. We believe that by filling this gap we can enhance outcomes for all consumers, businesses, and regulators.
---
We are filing the gap related to reliable facts not existing. We did a scientifically controlled test with GPC on and off. We presented the results as technical findings along with general background.
We are not lawyers, and we are happy to help others perform their own audits: https://webxray.ai - we have no desire to be lawyers.
We are a hard-tech engineering outfit, we deliver scientific clarity on complex topics.
So you agree that you have no way to confirm whether those websites honor or do not honor the do-not-sell-my-info choice. You are simply checking whether they set cookies or not, without knowing whether the data is sold or not on the backend.
Your marketing should specifically say "We track cookies" (or if you wanna get punchy about it, "We track cookies so cookies don't track you") so potential customers know exactly what they're getting. For the purposes of legal compliance, this is pretty irrelevant. There may be people that want to know that the existing laws and company's compliance to them doesn't actually stop the cookies from being sent, but your privacy report says the companies are "Our findings reveal major technology companies simply ignore globally defined opt-out signals, raising the spectre of industrial-scale non-compliance with California requirements", which is untrue and potentially opens you up to libel claims. They are not ignoring the laws, they are complying with the laws in a way that may or may not be what the consumer actually cares about.
Do you have any legal experience, evidence, or case history to support your perspective? You assert that the statement "Our findings reveal major technology companies simply ignore globally defined opt-out signals, raising the spectre of industrial-scale non-compliance with California requirements" is untrue -- how do you know? Do you think everything found in the discovery process would agree? Do you think a company with a history of privacy violations would actually go through with a lawsuit where they'd have to definitively prove they don't? What about proving malice, that webXray knew their statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth? What about the risk of filing a suit where California's anti-SLAPP statue would probably apply?
Thanks for speaking out publicly - especially as an Ex-Big Tech employee who knows the internal workings of these companies - and actually trying to do something about this.
I personally felt many times being tracked by Google or other big tech companies showing me something relevant to previous search queries even though they were made on different platforms and using adblock extensions (ublock origin). So their active tracking is definitely very elaborate.
I won't lie, I miss the Staff/L6 paycheck and lack of stress. This is way less money for way more stress, but I chart my own path. I'm proud of what my company https://webxray.ai is doing.
Apologies in advance an excuse my ignorance as I am going on a hunch here and don't have much rather than perhaps frustration driving my comment, but it feels like this isn't the first and nor will be the last we find stuff like this.
I can't help but think they will pay the fines and go on continuing doing this, which makes it seem like it just evolved into a scheme where the government now takes their cut.
Sadly this isn’t even that bad compared to what’s in their own app binaries. If you’ve got an old iPhone you can jb and some claude usage to spare I highly recommend hooking up a ghidra mcp so you can see for yourself.
I don’t have any of their apps on my phone. And there is no known method to get rid of the trackers in your iCloud keychain.
I've been at this 15 years now, and it's neither the first nor last thing I'll do. We call the site "Global Privacy Audit" because California is first. The laws in California are weaker than elsewhere in the world. This is a warm up for the main dish.
No questions to ask, just wanted to say thank you for your work. I'm sure it's not easy and definitely less stressful to just leave things be. Thank you.
This is a phenomenally stressful day, I pissed of Google, Microsoft, and Meta in one shot, and they will come after me again. We do it because we believe in our product, and we'll stand the test anybody - even BigTech - puts us to: https://webxray.ai/
I'm not surprised at the downvotes, but someday we all have to look in the mirror and decide if we like what we see, but it's easier to downvote in the meantime.
If I may... I suspect quite a few of your comments have been downvoted for being a little—frenetic. In many ways, your work here (together with your previous work experience) speaks for itself, at least to those of us who get it.
Unfortunately, awareness-raising and solution-building are probably two entirely separate stages for this issue.
Is there still anyone competent that "doubt" so? As long as data transit through their infrastructure, in security, we must always assume that it's recorded (and later-on, eventually used), it has nothing to do with "settings".
If a user has an "opt-out" button or signal it should be wired up to a system that functions as such. This is just a software engineering, you could vibe-code a fix in ten minutes.
I don't think monetary fines are going to protect the rights of the people. The justice system must arrest the CEO's and put them into prison. I would like to know if there are less drastic measures, but there needs to be consequences such that these corporations won't try this again.
I mean duh, but also this seems like a fairly weak gotcha. Cookies != Tracking, they can track you just fine without cookies, and they can use cookies without tracking you.
The report is specifically ads cookies and includes links to primary source disclosures on the websites of the companies mentioned. We did not count things like DDoS cookies, login tokens, and the like. We operate with unparalleled precision in our domain.
I'm curious why this was downvoted--I'm not complaining or trying to go against HN guidelines; I'm genuinely unclear as to why the first-party source for the article clarifying the question in GP was marked dead. Bad actors? Misinterpretation? Other?
No idea, I thought it was a valid question and we go to great lengths in our methodology for this reason. The audits we supply for enterprise are highly specific as to cookie purpose for this reason: https://webxray.ai
These greedy corporations spy on us. Our data is valueable to them.
When someone spies on you, it means they do not trust you. That
means we should not trust them either.
It's not just merely these giant corporations though. I think the
whole business model is broken, if they need to spy on people in
order to milk out more profit. One big glaring weakness is ...
the browser. I think we need to find a solution here. Chrome is
a problem. Chromium can not offset this problem; Google still makes
most decisions. (You can adapt, but it is a constants wear-and-tear
race to do so, Google has more resources.)
I used to think that Ladybird could provide an alternative; then I
was banned from the project site, allegedly for "trolling" and
"insulting". I disagree with that but there is no real regulation
to protest. This unfortunately exemplifies a problem how the modern
www became too restrictive in general and alternatives stumble on
their own "morality", before they even produced a real competitor
here. (I still think there should be competitors to Google, so it
is good that Ladybird exists; I am just no longer attached in any
way as to whether they succeed or not, due to the ban.)
What we need is a real global movement. Everywhere. The whole www
model has to change. It should not be controllable by private
entities or state agencies - those who watch the age verification
process already know what's coming next.
So this is the first audit in our Global Privacy Audit, we're going to keep going. California was the warm up, we're going world-wide with this, our technology scales 1:1 with theirs.
Luckily almost all modern corporate tracking is done through javascript execution + cookies. The days of parsing actual webserver logs are over for the most part. After all, it's only the browsers that execute javascript code and provide profitable personal information about the human behind the browser that matter. People with JS off are not providing sellable information and therefore classified and treated as if they were bots.
Turning off JS by default and temp-whitelisting only mitigates most of this tracking.
The issue is, even with all the browser protections, you still create an account anywhere or buy something an input your name/email address/shipping address, your "hashed data" immediately gets sent to meta/google as a conversion with "this guy bought a cat toy", and you start getting ads for cat related stuff everywhere.
They don't even need to "track" you properly for this stuff to work and it seems there's no way to escape it.
I don't experience that though I have friends who use smartphones who describe it. So I think a lot of it is via javascript. I doubt every retailer, or even a significant fraction, has their backend sending that type of data to $megacorp. But maybe I'm just lucky or shop weird places or it's because I use a new email address @superkuh.com for every account sign up. Or maybe I'm just not seeing the targeted ads for my $superkuhprofile that do exist because I have almost all ads successfully blocked. Perfect is the enemy of good anyway, all mitigations help a bit. And blocking JS is a huge mitigation.
If those companies are using big SaaS companies for eCommerce and have not going "Don't Track" part of their admin panel to turn off tracking, a lot of those SaaS companies will just sell off the data.
So sure, cat toy small time retailer on Etsy won't but credit card processor or shipper might.
I think part of the issue is that these retailers are also customers of meta/google on the side of purchasing ads, and as a merchant you're highly encouraged to send as much data on your events as you can, or your conversion tracking can be "less accurate"and your campaigns are less efficient.
So it's less about "we're sending the data to $megacorp" and more about "I want the most bang for buck on my own campaigns" when the decision is made.
Using a different email certainly helps, though!
EDIT: highly encouraged by meta et. al! Whether this is a legitimate request to improve results or pure self-interest on the part of meta I don't know!
Luckily "trust me bro" is not a defense in court - there is a thing called "discovery" when they have to prove their claims. The fact is few regulators ever use it, but class-action cases often do.
Companies have been getting increasingly aggressive with ‘destruction as a normal course of business/policy’ to help reduce the impact of that. And that assumes that the people tasked with doing the dirty work are following the policies.
It’s been pretty obvious at the federal level (Signal leaks, etc.) that the folks at the top are explicitly trying to avoid it.
Still waiting on a public recognition from a company I helped quietly fix a serious problem. I'm generally on the side of helping people fix, revealing what's going on publicly isn't our first preference.
(And to the person who resolved the issue with the Major AI Company - would it really hurt to give a shout-out for the help we gave you?)
great works! hope this gets more attention soon. Unfortunately I do not care for the graphic at the top of article (that casual readers will be impressed by) since it conflates spiritual imagery with spying.. People with little education in either easily conflate the two.. People who are hostile to spiritual topics can quickly amplify the vilification of it.. so, please consider not using that kind of symbol in media campaigns and public outreach. thx
Wait until you folks learn about the quantum panopticon. It sounds fake but governments everywhere are recording as much encrypted data as possible in hopes of decrypting it in the future w/ quantum computers: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-025-09723-2
Even the Google pre-installed system apps don't do this
Meta's attempts to conduct surveillance go further than ignoring "opt-out". Meta tries to bypass Android's built-in VPN and the system DNS settings
I use a computer I can reasonably control, i.e., one running an OS I compiled myself, as a gateway for the phone so traffic destined for 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 is blocked by the gateway's firewall
1. For example, using PCAPDroid or NetGuard
fines that amount to a daily expenditure account, do nothing. fines have to have potential to do real damage to, or destroy noncompliants, if there is going to be any deterrent.
contempt, is obvious, the chance of jail should exist in actuality, rather than a vague possibility.
im wondering what would be more effective.
1] desist or existentially threatening fines, or indentureship will occur.
2] you have a problem with code maintainence, we will take code maintainence into receivership, until you have demonstrated that you can maintain code in a legal framework.
Even those relatively small fines rarely get paid. Companies can tie up the judgements in the courts for years without having to pay a single cent. [1]
> The Data Protection Commission (DPC) is owed more than €4 billion in fines that have not been collected or are subject to legal challenge. The DPC hit companies – including firms in Big Tech – with more than €530 million in fines last year. However, just €125,000 of that has been collected so far, according to data released under FOI laws. Over the past six years, the commission has levied an incredible €4.04 billion in fines, mostly on multinational technology companies. However, of that total, €4.02 billion remains uncollected and just €20 million has been paid in fines so far. In 2024, €652 million worth of fines was levied, of which €582,500 has been paid.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2026/01/12/data-protecti...
I know I'm dreaming, but still.
" yes, havn the time of my life !"
"heres your bill."
"whaa aat ?!"
" oh, did you think it was all free, when everyone normal, pays ? "
Appends a source-url attribute at the end (404media).
I'm sure they're not doing anything nefarious with it, but it is a tiny bit ironic that there's a referral url like that associated with an organization that is speaking out about global privacy audits.
I'm glad they're doing this, and understand this is complex, but throwing out a "check the plank in thine eye before the sty in the others". I haven't really dealt with referral links like that, IIRC that's something 404 is sending as a referrer URL? Would it be prudent to reroute on the GPA sites such referral urls to strip them before sending back?
We have 'get tough on X, Y, Z' things that don't impact me at all. You can dial 911 if someone assaults you in the US, but I don't know of a single resource to get law enforcement involved when I am digitally assaulted. I think that is a big part of the problem here. Nobody is actually taking the call to enforce this stuff.
That's not to say the idea isn't interesting, but in terms of legal proceedings, chain of custody with the forensic data is most important.
I also want to push back on Google telling the press our California Privacy Audit is "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how [Google's] products work".
I'm the former head of Cookie Compliance at Google and I have the federal court filings that show their statements are not simply true, and Google knows it isn't true.
For the record, here are direct quotes from a federal court filing made by Google's "Data Protection Officer and Senior Director of Privacy", who stated that "If called to testify as a witness, [they] could and would testify competently to such facts under oath."
Here are those facts:
* "Due to Dr. Libert’s academic background focusing on cookies, he became one of the primary members of the team assisting with Google’s cookie compliance and governance efforts..."
* "Dr. Libert quickly assumed responsibility for aiding our in-house regulatory lawyers in addressing governmental investigations into cookies..."
* "Dr. Libert often worked under the guidance of in-house counsel to develop technical solutions to issues raised by privacy regulators..."
* "Dr. Libert was also responsible for the development of internal policies on cookies and web storage. He drafted Google’s internal cookie guidelines in 2021 and early 2022, which applies to all cookies or cookies-like objects, and outlines processes on managing cookies, storing cookies, logging data associated with cookies, server protocols, policies on data collection, and data linkage..."
* "By developing the policy and conducting the audit, Dr. Libert gained insight into every Google-owned cookie deployed across Google’s web properties..."
* "Dr. Libert also proposed changes to how Google interprets specific definitions across its products’ various privacy policies. This included work on policies relating to analytics and advertising services used by third-party apps and websites..."
--
TLDR: Google can say what they want about me in public, but when they are under oath in a federal court of law, this is what they really say.
> In the absence of regulatory, legal, or other requirements, websites can interpret an expressed Global Privacy Control preference as they find most appropriate for the given person, particularly as considered in light of the person's privacy expectations, context, and cultural circumstances.
The CCPA [2] also never explicitly mentions cookies or forbids them from being set. The relevant passages about opting out on the sale of personal information are:
> a) A business shall provide two or more designated methods for submitting requests to opt-out, including an interactive form accessible via a clear and conspicuous link titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information,” on the business’s website or mobile application. Other acceptable methods for submitting these requests include, but are not limited to, a toll-free phone number, a designated email address, a form submitted in person, a form submitted through the mail, and user-enabled global privacy controls, such as a browser plug-in or privacy setting, device setting, or other mechanism, that communicate or signal the consumer’s choice to opt-out of the sale of their personal information
How would you respond to their claim that you are fundamentally misunderstanding GPC, and that the spec and the law do not mean you never set cookies, they mean that you must honor the preferences expressed by the header in backend processes that involve tracking or sale of personal information?
[1] https://w3c.github.io/gpc/
[2] https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/privacy/oa...?
---
We are filing the gap related to reliable facts not existing. We did a scientifically controlled test with GPC on and off. We presented the results as technical findings along with general background.
We are not lawyers, and we are happy to help others perform their own audits: https://webxray.ai - we have no desire to be lawyers.
We are a hard-tech engineering outfit, we deliver scientific clarity on complex topics.
If the Internet didn't turn out the way it turned out, this could have been the greatest job ever.
I personally felt many times being tracked by Google or other big tech companies showing me something relevant to previous search queries even though they were made on different platforms and using adblock extensions (ublock origin). So their active tracking is definitely very elaborate.
I can't help but think they will pay the fines and go on continuing doing this, which makes it seem like it just evolved into a scheme where the government now takes their cut.
I don’t have any of their apps on my phone. And there is no known method to get rid of the trackers in your iCloud keychain.
I'm not surprised at the downvotes, but someday we all have to look in the mirror and decide if we like what we see, but it's easier to downvote in the meantime.
Unfortunately, awareness-raising and solution-building are probably two entirely separate stages for this issue.
That's probably true, but not what the articles reporting:
> 55 percent of the sites it checked set ad cookies in a user’s browser even if they opted out of tracking
So essentially, it's ignoring user preference directly, not just in spirit.
That's historically been a very prominent purpose of cookies.
Sure it's not exclusively tracking, but it's nonsense to make the assertion that "Cookies != Tracking"
When someone spies on you, it means they do not trust you. That means we should not trust them either.
It's not just merely these giant corporations though. I think the whole business model is broken, if they need to spy on people in order to milk out more profit. One big glaring weakness is ... the browser. I think we need to find a solution here. Chrome is a problem. Chromium can not offset this problem; Google still makes most decisions. (You can adapt, but it is a constants wear-and-tear race to do so, Google has more resources.)
I used to think that Ladybird could provide an alternative; then I was banned from the project site, allegedly for "trolling" and "insulting". I disagree with that but there is no real regulation to protest. This unfortunately exemplifies a problem how the modern www became too restrictive in general and alternatives stumble on their own "morality", before they even produced a real competitor here. (I still think there should be competitors to Google, so it is good that Ladybird exists; I am just no longer attached in any way as to whether they succeed or not, due to the ban.)
What we need is a real global movement. Everywhere. The whole www model has to change. It should not be controllable by private entities or state agencies - those who watch the age verification process already know what's coming next.
Got your ID ready to access information yet, bud?
Turning off JS by default and temp-whitelisting only mitigates most of this tracking.
They don't even need to "track" you properly for this stuff to work and it seems there's no way to escape it.
So sure, cat toy small time retailer on Etsy won't but credit card processor or shipper might.
So it's less about "we're sending the data to $megacorp" and more about "I want the most bang for buck on my own campaigns" when the decision is made.
Using a different email certainly helps, though!
EDIT: highly encouraged by meta et. al! Whether this is a legitimate request to improve results or pure self-interest on the part of meta I don't know!
Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic etc. etc.
sure... the contracts saying often there is no saving or learning from the AI API usage. But it's at the end like a "trust me bro" promise.
There is a saying on the internet:
The generation that refused cookies is now giving AI permission to read their emails, scan their local files, and manage their bank accounts.
It seems many have given up...
Guess who's winning?
It’s been pretty obvious at the federal level (Signal leaks, etc.) that the folks at the top are explicitly trying to avoid it.
(And to the person who resolved the issue with the Major AI Company - would it really hurt to give a shout-out for the help we gave you?)