Something I discovered when going down this rabbit hole is that if you had that conversation in your house and your visitors have access to your wifi, it may be that they performed the search without you knowing, and your ISP connected that data to you and sold it (as they do).
DNS lookups are still frequently in the clear, and even if they're not, that just means you're trusting some DNS-over-HTTPS provider. The incentives are perverse.
And of course whoever you are performing your search with, like, oh, an ad company like Google, Meta, or Facebook? They just might use that search data for something.
Exactly. Google or Meta can correlate behavioral data like this. Your ISP cannot do that by intercepting your searches.
I care about accuracy when it comes to privacy conversations. I don't want people wasting their time on theories that aren't true when they should be focusing on the real issues at stake.
For what it's worth, the ISP may not know the search terms entered, but it can see "google.com" followed by "itchybuttcream.net" when people click the first results. The data will grow more granular over time as users click the second or even third result on Google.
On WiFi you control this risk can be mitigated (force DNS to your own server that uses ODoH or similar) but for most people ISPs are still sitting on data gold mines obtained from passively observing DNS.
It's not the ISP that's connecting you together, it's google. If two people are on the same network and one of them is searching for something, it's going to affect the other person's ads too.
His phone would have to be running a hotspot for any visitors (in many parts of the rural area in my locale, mobile data is it for the internet) but if any visitors were with the same carrier network, visitors could have searched. However it's entirely improbable any of his buddies would be on their phone while they're there unless it was a legit interest. Secondly this is stuff from what I gathered, some of is stuff that no one would really even think exists - it's shit talk speculation that's out past the black stump - no one once they're back to earth is ever going to bother to look up even a small aspect of it.
In his case a realistic answer falls towards loose or sneaky permissions in regard of an app that have slipped through that have allowed a weird conversation to influence suggestions in internet activity later on.
However for more grounded subject matters, the more probable strange coincidences falls to queries and visits to the net being scraped by external API and content (fonts scripts etc) providers. I've no idea how much meaningful info would normally be shared between the site and third party providers that seemingly need to be contacted while a site loads.
I’m basing my reasoning on the assumption that advertisers (such as google, meta, tictoc) are aware of your ___location at all times. (See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42909921)
Based on this assumption, it wouldn’t be necessary for any of your friends to search for the topic during an evening together.. it would simply be enough that one of the friends showed some interest in the topic prior to the hangout (searched for something, read a blog, stopped for too long on an instagram reel).
Then, during an evening together, your phones all share the same ___location (and possibly movement). That’s enough for advertisers to suspect there’s some relationship there. Enough of an association to attempt an ad placement (or instagram reel) for a particular obscure topic.
I'd agree on assuming that certain apps do or try as best they can with an aim to track not only ___location but presence of other wifi bluethooth device ids with time stamps, to help build patterns and a unique fingerprint for marketing purposes - on the basis it can once the app is given (accidentally perhaps) the necessary permissions.
As such, if ___location or device id data were available to build a larger picture, for any sort of common topic I'd agree the advertising could easily be a result of data analysis of various subsets of phones in a given region, applying algorithms and feeding it back into search results.
However like I said, the stuff was apparently way way out there zany - he ensured me he would ever bother searching for it. So zany in fact no one would ever bother. For all I know he may have ruled out other people and have just been talking to his pet dog and various other tame native animals that hang around his verandah. I would tend to believe way way out there as after a small smoke around me he's dribbling worthless bs. There's no low bar on my part either - something like if polka dot dogs exist I could accept as something that might / could be searched the next day by anyone who was involved in such a out there conversation, and as a result skew search results.
Any how I'm settled on it's one of the many worthless apps on his phone that exists because a website is not desktop friendly - as they say if the service is free, you're the product ...
