I gave them two decades and they never figured out how to show ads that are relevant. They never figured it out and I don't believe they ever will, I'm done sharing data with them and I'm done watching ads.

Countless articles and media pieces over the years on the plethora of unethical ways our data gets sold, resold and abused and still you ask what's wrong...

Yet No alternative have arrived to ads, people are used to free software how do you circumvent these things ?

Ads aren't the problem, the surveillance is. That you can't have the former without the latter is a myth FB and Google peddle to justify their existence. They don't even need your data all that much - the duopoly the myth perpetuates is what matters. There's no conclusive proof that personalized ads are more efficient than old banner networks, much less that FB's or Google's services are worth the huge share of profits they take as intermediaries.

Who said this ruling forbids ads? It only forbids user tracking (actually not even that - it just requires meaningful consent to be obtained before tracking users).

It amazes me how people--even technical people--have been tricked into believing that ads require pervasive tracking.

Ads have been around for as long as there has been trade. So, thousands of years. Pervasive tracking has been around for less than thirty years. But yeah, "how in the world will we ever be able to show ads to people and pay for software?"

>How are they screwing users? By showing them relevant ads?

If the true purpose of ads is just an innocent venture in creating beneficial user experiences with helpful suggestions, then we can improve that system by orders of magnitude by getting rid of distortions associated with paid placement.

Then we can reap all of the benefits without having to worry about the experience being compromised by the distorting effects of self-interest, associated with privileged placement in exchange for payment.

Breaching privacy, having a detailed dossier of my online behavior, is itself a harm done onto me.

> By showing them relevant ads?

If only. Generally they just manage to show me ads to buy more of the stuff I just bought. Or something I looked at and decided not to buy.

I think the elephant in the room are political ads, and in some regions personal civil rights.

So the screwing is not done by the advertisers but by the kind of ads and the third party access to data.

Also companies like Google seem to have a very clear stance wrt to both, while companies like FB in the past have been pivotal in political landslides, screwed-over level personalized political influencing...

Under GDPR, users are perfectly free to want relevant ads.

Users are getting screwed by IAB, because IAB does their best to remove users that freedom.

By not complying with users' lawful rights under the GDPR.