I see no harm in banning advertising based on personal information (at least without explicit consent) and a lot of good that would result.
This isn't about banning any type of ad, this is about removing a destructive way of targeting ads.
1. As previously noted, I find ads targeted based on my personal information useful, when done well. The harm is that ads become less relevant to me (and others). If I have to see ads anyway, I would prefer them to be as relevant as possible.
2. Banning ads targeted on personal info makes advertising a less effective/lucrative funding method for free services. This in turn increases the likelihood that such services will have to move to more regressive funding models, like subscriptions.
1. I'm sure you have a good example then? One where the benefits are commensurate with the non-consensual destruction of privacy that was committed to allow that Ad to be shown?
2. Citation please? The "progessivity" of ad supported services is debatable... especially when there aren't paid alternatives. Advertising is mostly a zero sum game so if a loss of tracking reduces effectiveness just means that other mediums that don't provide tracking wiol pick up market share.
Your original comments were that you wanted to outlaw certain types of ads entirely, war-on-drugs style. Not "take care of people who might be adversely affected by certain types of ads", but rather "these ads shouldn't exist", even if (from the broader perspective) that approach could cause more harm than good.