And how's that different than advertisements in News Papers/magazines and TV? People never seemed to have a problem with that, and no one ever said "you are the product". Somehow, that is associated mostly only with Google.

People have always said that, it's just that the mediums we had before were much more censored than the Internet.

“You are the product of t.v.(...) you are delivered to the advertiser who is the customer. He consumes you”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Delivers_People

And if at some point, the industry shifts to direct brain-stimulation to influence behavior, someone will say "how is that different from targeted advertising? People seemed to have no problem with that..."

How exactly would you expect that "having a problem with it" manifests? By not watching TV and not reading any kind of newspaper?

Fast-forwarding through ads has been an extremely popular feature for VCRs.

The precision with which it can be done.

First off: tu quoque. You're changing the argument, which I'll take to mean you've conceeded the point.

But since you ask, it's very much the same, and people have very much had a problem with that, which raises a second fault with your argument: false premise.

Noam Chomsky. Pretty much his life's work.

Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. (NB: Mander is a former ad executive himself).

Hamilton Holt, a magazine publisher himself, wrote of the fundamental problem in 1909, Commercialism and Journalism. https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft

I.F. Stone spoke of the problem in 1974 on "Day at Night". The video is now on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g

Robert R. Murrow's "Lights and Wires in a Box" criticised generally the television industry, in the 1950s. http://www.rtdna.org/content/edward_r_murrow_s_1958_wires_li...

A couple of Stanford researchers in the 1990s recognised the corrosive effects of advertising on incentives in the provision of online services. The prior awareness didn't save them from faling into the same pit: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

Niel Postman. Technopoly and Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders

Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt looks at influencing on a much broader basis.

Banksy's art is, in many regards, a direct refutation of advertising. The letter attributed to him on the topic is originally by someone else however. It remains exceedingly good reading: http://thefoxisblack.com/2012/02/29/banksy-on-advertising/

There's a large literature on the subject.

Generally, psychological aspects of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3AAdvertising+Psychologi...

Criticisms of advertising: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=critici...

At Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising

There is an option somewhere in Google settings to turn off personalized ads.

Which makes the ads much poorer. You'd need a particular philosophy to want to check that box; most people, I think, would use a blocker.

Why isn't it in my interest to be shown ads that offer me goods and services of my interests?

Because ads are evil. They are bedrock of all worldwide bullshit and scam. They make seller don’t care about reputation, competitors and eventually product quality. They transfer products completion into ads competition. They make all products more expensive because of this “advertising tax”. They turn off customer’s head to make a zombie who buys best advertised product instead of one with the best quality. They are good only for advertising companies and scammers.

Ads are a great way to make your product known. Have you ever ran a business? At some point if you want to participate in the market of voluntary exchange of good, services and ideas, you need to advertize. The only countries where ads are forbidden and nowhere to be found are North Korea and before that USSR. Very depressing places. I love seeing people expressing themselves and showing up what they've built and trying to sell it. What's wrong with that? Advertizing oneself is one of the most human treat we have and has always existed one way or the other.

Yes, I’m talking this from my business experience. I’m selling software. It was cracked and thief is easily selling it with adwords now. He has top ad’s position in Google (despite several dmca notices and not only from me) and Google doesn’t care about it as long as they get good money from thief. Google must share responsibility with the scammers for false advertising and the customers and sellers should have a way to make Google pay for promoting scam. The ads cost should be proportional to the possible damage.

I'm amazed that isn't obvious to you, they are there to influence your buying habits in the interest of the advertiser.

Only (mostly?) if you don't know that they're trying to.