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?