SECTUAL

They'd do just as well to place contextual ads in related content as to track and build profiles of individuals.

New York Times Wrote:Search, maps and email don’t make the case for creepy ads. Search and maps are primarily funded by contextual ads — ads that are related to the query that users type into the search engine or the map. Meanwhile, most email services are free for limited usage but make money by selling additional features.

...

Jeremy’s Razors doesn’t need to know your family structure, your favorite sport or the name of your favorite singer. Jeremy’s could simply place its anti-woke ads near anti-woke content.

https://tinyurl.com/yntuaca8

I think targeting ads is just straight up wrong.

Advertising is one thing, but building profiles on every segment of the population just to peddle them smack??

I dislike it.

Am I wrong??

Is there some kind of reason why TARGETED ads aren't kinda reprehensible?

It's one thing to advertise a spatula on a cooking blog...

It's another thing to spy on every word people type in their mobile devices and show them ads based on things that were supposed to have been shared privately (texts with friends, emails and so on).

Oh, it's insidious. Advertisers can sneak around anti-discrimination laws by micro-targeting very specific demographics.

The main point of the article was that you'll probably pay more for inferior goods if you buy what's advertised to you online, according to two studies.

That fact alone justifies using an ad blocker. Screw them because they're gonna screw you.

Interestingly, I had to use a URL shortener to post the whole sharing link (from Reddit) that bypasses the NYT's paywall. When I tested the shortened link, my ad blocker warned me that it was tracking me.

Creepy to think how deep the surveillance goes and how out of hand it is.

There's probably no going back from that.

Same as all other areas of society...

Once so much freedom is given up, you're not getting it back without a fight.