I personally prefer having personalised ads over vanilla ones. Especially if the data is not sold but merely used to improve ads.
If possible I try to pay where possible to not have ads in the first place.
You can be targeted without explicitly selling data to a third party. This is how most large advertising networks work. They don't send a dump of all user data to a third party who wants to advertise.
I do admit that this is a valid viewpoint. But also, the problem is that the choice is between “the data is collected” and “the data is not collected,” and ads being relevant is just a proxy for that. Even if a company was actually responsible with data and had a proven track record in data security, it just seems like unnecessary risk for something that is not very important to the end user.
I’ve learned to love more direct advertising. Granted, I will admit that NordVPN and Raycon may not provide the best or even in some cases most honest products, but the model they are using to advertise, by having reputable creators appeal to their viewers in enjoyable ways (see, for example, the way Internet Historian uses his signature video editing style and makes the whole ordeal of an advertisement into an over-the-top joke; people end up looking forward to these ad reads) is pretty solid, and it might have more room for growth with creators seeking more direct monetization with both their fans and sponsors alike.
Compared to that, even the most relevant ads generated by some algorithm will always feel impersonal. It’s a giant machine to me.
You can be targeted without explicitly selling data to a third party. This is how most large advertising networks work. They don't send a dump of all user data to a third party who wants to advertise.
They don't have to dump the data, your request for the ad is itself data that allows more targeting by that network. Part of your identity is sold by default the moment you content to the linked ad network.
That request is made to the ad platform (e.g. Google/FB/Amzn) and not the 3th party who owns the ad. Even when following the link the website does not get any personal information it does not already get by you visiting their website.
You mentioned data originally, not personal information. You do give the 3rd party data about your current visit which is connected with all the information they already have about you - which builds up your profile. But the difference is not that big - for example did you visit page for the local school with a facebook button? Yeah, facebook already knows which area you likely live in.
Advertisers have proven time and time again they're not trustworthy.
And any website that says "your privacy is important to us" while deliberately tricking you into accepting terms and cookies you weren't easily made aware of is a hostile adversary.
I've said before, I'd be happy to see ads that were embedded in the website's content, unchanging and baked in on the day the page was written (like print publications) as there would be no need to track and stalk me, profile me and sell my behaviour to dodgy companies around the world who are making money from me without my consent.
Do that and I'll turn my ad blocker off. Until then, let's bring on the gdpr lawsuits.
Which is never. It's disingenuous to even pay homage to this idea being possible in practice, as it makes the space seem a lot less seedy than it is.