And even just traditional local newspapers targeted based on locale and readership. The New York Post is going to have different advertising than The New York Times.
I agree that attempts to target at an individual level feels different than just targeting a magazine's subscription base, but it's still targeting. So if someone wants to ban "targeting" they need to be more precise about what they're proposing to ban.
if i subscribe to a magazine about fishing and it includes an advertisement about some new fishing lure, well... it's obvious why the fishing magazine might think i'm into fishing.
but if i just bought a pack of diapers at walmart and then start seeing mailers for baby monitors from jc penny, that's when i start to get nervous.
my fear is of a world where i call up a health insurance provider, ask for a quote, and they say "according to facebook market research, your hobbies include BASE jumping based on the videos you watch on youtube. therefore your premium rate will be [$xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.00].".
If so, are you really just upset about the idea of not being able to easily lie to them?
If not, why do you think other policyholders should pay more to cover your risky hobbies?
in reality, at least in the US, they wouldn't tell you the details of how they arrived at that quote. i only spelled it out in my comment to make my point (my example was also an extreme and oversimplified one). in reality, i would call, they would give me a number that got spit out from a black box, and then i would need to either accept it or keep shopping around with other black boxes.
it's not just about health insurance, of course. it's a more general concern about how my internet browsing habits are affecting or will affect other arenas of my life.
i should never have to say to myself "hmm. this webpage offers legal content with information that interests me, but maybe i shouldn't view it because it might negatively affect my shadow profiles which are used to gatekeep my access to certain elements of my society.". i'm not saying we're there now, but as others have said, this type of data collection and sharing at this scale is fairly new, and it has the potential to go in that direction. (and has already made steps in that direction.)
The fact that we functioned without something doesn't imply that we're better off without it.
And literally billions of people do function without targeted advertising, right now.
But we can function without lots of things. The fact that we can function without something isn't a strong argument in favour of getting rid of it.
I don't even like advertising. I'm not trying to support advertising. I'm just addressing the logical fallacy.