No, it would have made targeted advertising on the internet be very hard to develop. The internet existed before targeted advertising, with site-specific advertising based on the interests of a site. Stalking users across sites for the purpose of targeted advertising is a much newer development.

I agree that this doesn't align with the US's general approach to this sort of thing. That is a fault with the US's general approach, not with privacy protections.

Targeted advertising is a major reason for the Internet’s success. It has allowed many companies to become extremely wealthy and invest back into the ecosystem.

Targeted advertising on the internet as a general practice did not start until the mid to late aughts, long after the internet was a success. Targeted advertising is not a reason for the Internet's success.

The internet in the mid to late aughts is not considered a success by today's standards.

I agree with you, but we probably have different opinions as to which internet should be considered a success :-)

Personally I'd rather the internet be less successful and more useful/less hostile.

> Targeted advertising is a major reason for the Internet’s success.

It's the major reason for social media's success, not the internet. The internet was successful long before social media.

> It has allowed many companies to become extremely wealthy and invest back into the ecosystem.

What? It monopolized the ecosystem. Not the same thing.

What do you mean by "monopolized the ecosystem?"

To create more targeted advertising companies. Huzzah!

I mean much lower-level things.

Email's early versions weren't strongly privacy-protecting.