> redefining terms and norms.
> AKA rhetoric and persuasive language.
I think you've just engaged in it. While norms and language are a little mushy, they're not meaningless. Human culture has long held traditions around basic mores that really don't change over time and culture. For example, most instances of homicide are bad and are codified as such.
Yes, there is some wiggle room for rhetoric, but words have durable meaning, and when people take the time to think critically about their usage, they can spot dishonesty, weasel wording, and hyperbole.
> something that looks an awful lot like a literally-against-the-law crime
> modern tech's business model is "being a gross, creepy stalker, at scale"
You're equivocating a sample of a person's internet behavior with an actual person. These are not the same thing. You're using that equivocation to draw your analogy of tracking and retargeting as being nearly indistinguishable from real world stalking, which is absolutely hyperbolic and disingenuous. People who are being stalked are in actual, mortal danger. It is incredibly difficult for them to terminate the observation and following of their real, physical person. They experience intense (and very rational) psychological and emotional distress as a result.
I'll again note that I haven't seen convincing evidence of the demonstrable, widespread, or significant harms resulting from tracking/retargeting. Instead your argument seems to rely almost entirely on a fundamentally flawed analogy.