I’m concerned that self-righteousness is superseding real societal progress, here.
Setting aside ones emotional reactions goes a long way in illuminating the core ethical and philosophical differences. Those are the things that need to be revised.
In this case, one clear avenue to resolve the advertising wars is to make it legislatively clear as to which party is at fault: the party that gave the consent or the party that created the circumstances within which consent was given.
In academic research, the principles are clear: it is the duty of the researchers to provide informed consent.
There is no such clarity, in the United States, as to what extent business are required to provide and enforce informed consent.
Apple is going a long way on this topic with the privacy nutrition labels, and it would be quite the win for free-market economists if Apple were to resolve this problem outside of the legal system, but Google and Facebook are the companies built on advertising, not Apple.
How will society legislate that Google and Facebook must ensure that consent was given?
Arguing that advertising should be abolished is like arguing that the news should be abolished.
Do we need laws that specify that new product announcements can only happen in the context of news articles?
Being deemed legally permissible does not make that same action morally acceptible. To you, perhaps, but certainly not to others.
Clearly an accusation that violates the HN site guidelines. Mob bullying at its best, defending an academic endeavor of ethical advertising is not evidence of participation in said endeavor.
> you don’t have the consent of the public
I believe the US Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, as pertains to the privacy expectation of your garbage on the side of the street: there is no such expectation of privacy.
It naturally follows that being in public is de-facto consent to being exposed to the public sphere, which includes things such as public advertising.