This seems like a deflection - every media platform on the internet relies on the advertising platforms of BigTech in some way. Ultimately, all your data end up there somehow.
Wired is trying to redefine “surveillance” to mean people collecting and sharing their own information, while at the same time conducting real, detailed surveillance on anyone reading this article.
You might wonder if they being completely disingenuous.
(And it's the ad platforms that are doing the detailed surveillance - similar to the one Apple is working on again to serve better" personalised ads").
Even if some of you do believe this is hypocrisy, does it in anyway change the facts highlighted in the article?
Do the stalkers ever defend themselves by claiming they never said they wouldn't stalk people? No, that's an utterly ridicuous notion. Stalking is illegal, nobody likes being surveilled by some stranger at all times. Whether they warned the victim of their intent is completely irrelevant.