I believe your first point and disbelieve the second.

That doesn't get away from the basic fact that all advertising is an attempt at manipulation. The advertiser is trying to encourage a transaction when there wouldn't otherwise have been one. It would be pointless if this wasn't the case.

If you don't want to be manipulated at all (my preference) then it's better not to see targeted adverts.

Hmm, if manipulation means intending a change in behavior in the recipient then this is true. But by that definition many things are manipulative, like regulation / tax codes (which create behavior changes). So I'm not sure if I quite understand this idea of seeking a change in behavior being distasteful.

Maybe it's that some advertisers create the problem they're solving (e.g. body image issues, etc)? Or that it's used for commercial ends? Or that the best product recommendations typically come from friends and family so why bother having ads anyways?

Having bought some products I discovered from ads myself, I can't help but think that I have benefited from the arrangement in a similar way that both parties benefit in economic exchanges. Obviously I'd rather have had my friend tell me but that might have taken... who knows how long.

> A common view is that both sides in an economic transaction gain some sort of benefit.

Yes, assuming 0% force is involved and both agents are 100% rational. Just like spherical cow, the real world is not that simple.