Untargeted ads means less revenue, so if we go that way prepare for free sites going away or having to pay for some features.

E.g. basic Gmail will be free, but if you want something like Undo Send, etc. then you'll have to pay a monthly fee for it.

And these fees from the various sites will add up quickly.

> Untargeted ads means less revenue

This isn't at all clear, mostly because every "ad" professional I've talked to IRL is as allergic to real data as some people are to peanuts. What you've quoted is a sales pitch.

It's not just clear, it's Cristal Clear™.

Here's a review of all the relevant literature on the topic: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PKHVtO6hgwBJS1vafLyv...

The literature here is of poor quality. For a salient example, look at this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3020503

Where a giant group is compared to an extremely tiny group and the differences between them are used to make sweeping generalizations about everyone. When this is the quality to expect, it's just good practice to be skeptical.

Edit: Even if this weren't the case, the enormous spread of estimates when it comes to revenue impact really says it all.

You get "free" sites that you actually pay for indirectly through the ad costs embedded in the price of any advertised product you pay for. Also, how is the claim that "Untargeted ads means less revenue" supported?

they're ads, just done right by providing value instead of being spam.