If there's no user information/tracking, what are the chances that any of those ads will be served to a potential customer for the small business? The GP's bottom line is that nobody except large consumer brands should bother advertising.

This is a theoretical interesting point. But it does not withstand even cursory empirical research.

Open a newspaper. Look at page two. What do you see? Ads for local businesses. Watch local TV. More ads for small businesses.

Okay, now go to the websites for those newspapers and TV stations. No local businesses. Literally all scam ads.

>No local businesses. Literally all scam ads.

I was like "ok, is that really true" so I went and checked, and by golly, you're right. And it's 50-50 the "scam ad" I got is a direct result of a doctor leaking my medical records.

The whole online ad industry should be regulated out of existence.

It sounds like your doctor was a big source of trouble; shouldn’t they be the one regulated out of existence?

Actually it was their accountant.

In any case, it's not them who are exploiting the information. The ad industry is like a fence for stolen goods.

It's not that my medical information is top secret; it's that I don't want to see ads about earwax. And I think Google execs should be forced to watch them until they repent and become monks or something.

If you allow for location based ads (eg: city level), there may be a chance.

Except 1000 impressions for a smaller company might still be impactful.