You can use that service to get enough context clues about certain targets to identify someone [0] [1]. Will most advertisers do this? Not five years ago but it's vanishingly easy now to get an LLM to gin up bespoke algorithms that will do it for you. And the door between Google's servers and federal LEOs has no latch and they share plenty of byte-for-byte data with agencies like ICE (which is literally one of my links).
I don't understand the point of being so hyperfixated on word choice since this is just Hacker News and not a court of law. But I suppose everyone makes their choices for a reason even if that reason has more to do with some reactionary and emotional outburst rather than any actual substantive additions to the discussion.
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.04031
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-dv360-banned-audience-seg...
The bottom line being that what you have amounts to a plausible security flaw. Which the market has been treating as such, reasonably effectively.
Yet you are all claiming that Google is literally offering "here's user data for sale at a price". Which they are not and never have. And that's not the same thing, and you know it.
It's one thing to claim a company's product is bad or insecure. It's quite another to lie about them. And fine, that produces a (sigh) "reactionary and emotional outburst". HN used to be so much better about rational discourse. Now it's all about who our enemies are.
OP did not say that, has clarified his intent. At this point I think you are the one willfully misinterpreting the discussion at hand, either so you can "win" at internet pedantry, or perhaps so you can feel better about the evil panopticon you have helped build.