[usgroup]

Frankly I’m not sure I see a world where Internet advertising is not targeted . Sure it drives profit for Google et al but it does so because it drives profit for a million other businesses. It’s non existence implies a substantial economic cost.

I’d like to see more written and more popularly known about effective, targeted but privacy respecting ad models. Then a good argument would be “why FloC when X is possible?”

To me FloC looks like an attempt at a compromise. Whether we like the world we have or not, there is no going back to the “good old days”.

[patates]

I don't like the defeatist attitude. Targeted advertising is an opportunistic reaction of the companies who lived the first-mover advantage to its fullest, lacking any regulation.

The market is big enough and can survive regulation, and would evolve alternatives, and the associated deadweight loss would be an acceptable compromise.

Not to mention, the targeted advertising is a game of Prisoner's Dilemma, where all parties lose, it's not even 100% sure if the regulation would cause inefficiency at all.

[usgroup]

Sure maybe but I can't think of any precedent for what you're saying. Countries have typically gone from some advertising to even more advertising. An example in which convincing people to buy stuff got harder and people bought the same amount or more stuff doesn't spring to mind.