Perhaps we can start from the points I'm making and assess them on their own merits instead?
Nope. I'm not bringing up your professional work to disagree with a position you're advancing. I'm trying to understand your perspective.
>Perhaps we can start from the points I'm making and assess them on their own merits instead?
As far as I can tell, the points you made are:
A) It's strange people make moral choices to stay out of advertising.
B) Advertisement could be more targeted.
B is boring and I don't care.
A isn't really a point with merits to be debated.
I enjoy eating meat. But I don't call it "strange" everytime someone turns out to be vegetarian. I understand why they refrain from eating meat. It's not like I disavow the existence of the question of "should we eat meat?". I just disagree.
The existence of ethical questions around advertising, and surveillance-driven advertising in particular, isn't really up for debate is it? The answers to those questions have been a topic of argument on this very website for at least a decade.
What I'm asking is: when it's so obvious that there exists a sizable number of people who have a moral stance against something, why would you find it "strange" that someone you know very little about might avoid it?
Pretty much the exact opposite of what I said...
> I enjoy eating meat. But I don't call it "strange" everytime someone turns out to be vegetarian.
Um, neither do I.
Do you actually have any points to make here? Besides the ad hominem attack I mean?
Be careful before you start tossing around the Latin, someone might hit you with a 'cui bono?'.
You founded and run an advertising company. Are you taking the piss? Surely you've aware of the ethical issues even if you don't give a fuck about them.
Or are you just saying you categorically expect AI/ML people's interest in the tech and/or money to override the ethics?