Did you miss the bit where given a choice most people opted out of surveillance?

No concern at all about the adverse effects on democracies of the misuse of data?

The popularity of these services is good evidence to the contrary.

Also you are assuming you can have 'same' service after banning targeting. That remains to be seen.

Also, you could consider disagreeing without being rude.

We can't have the same right now because these companies are so focused on making targeted ads work. Which is not because it works so well but because it's their #1 market benefit. Facebook wants to sell targeted ads because few players have as wide reaching insight as they have.

Once they have to stop they will have to actually put effort in making contextual advertising work. Imagine a local business sponsoring a related Facebook page. Or buying ads for declared interests.

It can work but the big parties don't want it to. Because they've invested billions in building their market advantage in targeted.

Targeting is a thing from the last decade, we did fine before and we will do fine after.

Can a business have its ads seen just by its local geographic area without targeting?

Trivially by ip. No tracking required.

I agree. The only reason contextual is frowned upon and thus gathering lower prices is because targeted is promoted as more effective. So contextual is viewer as the lesser option. And also hampered so it doesn't actually work.

Once contextual advertising once again becomes the best option because targeted ads are banned, it will be worth the full price again.

Also, I think it will in fact work better. There's no point showing cosmetics ads on a tech site to a guy like me just because I bought eau de toilette last week. Really no point because I buy one bottle of the same stuff every few years. Any contextual ads that that site would have shown would have more relevance to me. Real world example.

I think contextual targeting is perfectly sufficient for most advertisers.