[finolex1]

Why would it benefit society to get less targeted ads as opposed to more targeted ones?

[autoexec]

> Why would it benefit society to get less targeted ads as opposed to more targeted ones?

Because more targeted ads require a dangerous and abusive system of pervasive surveillance while less targeted ads can still be targeted without hurting as many people in the process.

[refurb]

> Because more targeted ads require a dangerous and abusive system of pervasive surveillance

I don't think they require it.

A targeted ad can be as simple as geolocation via IP address and showing local businesses.

[ozim]

Ads can be targeted but not at individual.

If I am Tylor Swift fan I should get her merch advertising only when I am visiting swifties forum or group - but not when I am checking my fishing forum where I expect fishing gear ads. But nowadays I get adsg

[ab5tract]

Because there would be no incentive to commodify user activity, bundle it up, and resell it to ever more dubious information brokers?

[amelius]

Also it would help reduce overconsumption which is great given the finite resources we have on this planet.

[llm_trw]

You'd need to ban targeted marketing, not just advertising.

If I were selling widgets I still greatly care about knowing who buys a billion widgets a year and will pay good money to find out.

[okanat]

Tracking stats of your customers using the data they willingly gave you and making marketing decisions isn't the problem. Neither is making sponsorship agreements with content producers who make relevant content.

Creation of global markets with interconnected networks to track and share detailed personal information about mental states, political alignment, sexual life and more is the problem.

[llm_trw]

Yes, all those things mean I get to find out what _groups_ buy my products.

The plural of anecdote is data after all.

[austhrow743]

Ads would be less effective at convincing people to be unhappy.