SAEDNEWS: Rapper Cardi B posted on X that she suspects phones are “not just listening to us” but also “reading our minds,” sparking a viral debate — privacy researchers say microphones and tracking explain some incidents, while true mind-reading remains largely a lab-based technology not present in consumer phones.
According to SaedNews: Cardi B’s late-August post on X — in which she wrote she was “not trying to be a conspiracist” but felt phones might be “reading our minds” — went viral and was picked up by outlets including TMZ and Yahoo. The post revived a familiar public worry: are our phones secretly eavesdropping or somehow accessing our thoughts?
Cardi B’s public X post (Aug. 29, 2025) saying she suspected phones “are not just listening to us.. they also reading our minds” was widely amplified by entertainment sites and social feeds. TMZ, Yahoo and others republished screenshots and commentary, helping the post trend. That’s the provable, sourceable part of the story.
Phones do have microphones and voice assistants (Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa) that listen for wake words and can process audio samples — and some apps have microphone permissions — so phones can and do capture audio in limited circumstances. Major tech platforms and manufacturers say they do not routinely or secretly transcribe ambient speech to build ad profiles, but leaked industry slides and adtech pitches in recent years have renewed suspicion that advertisers experiment with “active listening” concepts. Independent reporters and fact-checkers still find no consistent evidence that big platforms are covertly streaming all ambient conversations for ad targeting.
Most experts point to a mix of data practices and human perception to explain “mind-reading” anecdotes: highly developed ad-targeting systems, cross-device tracking, location and proximity data, shared household searches, and confirmation bias mean people often suddenly see ads closely related to recent private thoughts. In short: sophisticated profiling, not literal telepathy, is the likeliest explanation for most spooky coincidences.
There is real progress in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs): academic and industry labs have decoded certain neural signals into text or commands, and some consumer wearables now use EEG to infer focus or mood. But these systems require specialized sensors (electrodes, headsets) and close signal processing — they are not the same as off-the-shelf smartphones quietly decoding unspoken thoughts. Widespread consumer mind-reading via phones remains speculative and technically unfeasible today.
Reports in 2024–25 about adtech companies (e.g., leaked CMG slides) suggested some vendors pitched “active listening” tools; those revelations prompted platform investigations and denials and have not demonstrated industry-wide secret eavesdropping by major tech firms. That controversy is part of why public anxiety about phones persists — there are credible privacy problems in the ad industry, even if “mind-reading phones” is an overreach for most claims.
