No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still advertising, and people still pay for it.
> And no, the company does not have any such obligation to its shareholders
You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting down the site".
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/tech/google-france-copyri...
> No, advertising can exist very easily without targeting. It's still advertising, and people still pay for it.
Have you tried advertising your product on such platforms? It just does not work if you're not a huge brand name with a deep pocket.
> You're ignoring that some of the people with the most stock are those in charge of the company. They'd be destroying their own wealth by "shutting down the site".
Actually that's the basis for my argument. That's why they might want to go "on a strike" for a few days - if it succeeds, it would massively increase their profits compared to the non-ad targeting version of the company, while missing only a few days of revenue if not successful.
> Except to those pesky shareholders. Which includes employees. Peoples' wealth is tied up in those stocks.
That stock is dead anyways if they forbid ad targeting. And no, the company does not have any such obligation to its shareholders - it only has to make profit for its shareholders as best as it can, which may very well include turning the site off for a few days (the public/gov does not need to know for how long it is turned off and/or whether indefinitely).