> death of traditional media

Well if adverting is so bad, and old media relied on advertising, Tech was doing the world a favor by starving them out.

We should be thanking Google for exposing the corruption that was the old media advertising empire

As bad as advertising in old media was, at least it wasn't a platform of targeted surveillance and psychological manipulation. An advertisement was just an advertisement, you could pay attention to it or not, and your attention if it was noted at all was only noted in aggregate. Your radio or tv didn't know who you are, know where you live, develop complex behavioral profiles on you, record all of your browsing, shopping and communication data, listen in on your with microphones or watch you with cameras.

Google didn't expose the corruption of old media, rather it supplanted it with even deeper and more insidious corruption.

I wouldn't underestimate the psychological manipulation of old media, but you're right there's a whole industry around gathering and leveraging metrics, it still feels primitive but my imagination always wanders into how you can tie data points together. Maybe I'm on the wrong side of the fence.

The article is about behavioral advertising, which was not feasible with old media technologies.

The problem isn’t the ads. The problem is the ad targeting.

> We should be thanking Google for exposing the corruption that was the old media advertising empire

But they (and the rest of the industry) have replaced it with an even more egregious and abusive advertising system.

Google gets no thanks from me.

The only non-consenting advertising I can think of is public billboards - and I believe those should be banned, most definitely.

Every single other type of advertising requires your explicit consent. YouTube? Google? Newspapers? All have your consent.

This is actually a good point.

I can’t avoid billboards. But I can trivially avoid FB/Google/YT etc.

I can also use things like uBlock.

The internet is open and inherently client focused. That’s a huge feature. We’re ultimately in control.

This is good in theory, but does not hold for day-to-day reality.

News reports, announcements, updates, etc are often announced and hosted on social media and YouTube. The main news outlets hardly host their own video, and half the useful announcements got made on Twitter first (before Musk torched it lol), so unless “remain deliberately ignorant” is the alternative - which I don’t think it is, then the reality is that you end up on one of these tech giants real quick.

Or take some mildly grey area technical steps to get around it. I don't see too many ads these days between the pihole & newpipe & whatever adblockers I've got on Firefox. Traditional TV when we watch the news is basically it. That not open to everyone I know since you need some technical knowledge to set it up.

> Every single other type of advertising requires your explicit consent. YouTube? Google? Newspapers? All have your consent.

How exactly do they have that "consent"?

You must accept their Terms of Service to use them. These terms of service state that they will show you advertising, and in order to use the website, you must agree to these terms. They have very clear consent.

That EULA is a) unenforceable in many countries and b) does not constitute informed consent under GDPR

Seems like good proof that the GDPR != Truth

> The only non-consenting advertising I can think of is public billboards

There is advertising in public washrooms, there is advertising on people's clothing, there is advertising playing on PA systems, there is advertising embedded in movies, there is advertising presented as news. There is nonconsenting advertising everywhere. In my experience, more of it is nonconsenting than consenting -- probably because very few people would actually consent to it.