But so is essentially all interaction with your environment. Every interaction you have with essentially everyone might change your behavior. The only difference is the scale.
The problem is that the power of targeted advertising has been democratized (irony intended) to allow everyone to do it. It is capable enough that it can end peaceful democracies.
Might be a difference of opinion, but what do you propose as an alternative to funding free things like news sites, videos on the internet, and even cable television channels.
I'm not saying that ads are particularly ethical, but I struggle to think of a replacement that isn't more paywalls. This is an easy decision to make for people that have the money, but is much harder for the majority of Americans. A Vox article [1] estimates that this would add an average of $35 a month, assuming every US adult paid this cost (which is a bold assumption).
This insidious equivocating between friends recommending things to each-other and companies buying themselves a piece of your attention for profit by advertising apologists is pretty gross.
I saw a Facebook ad for a intro course on FPGA programming. I clicked on it; I paid the guy some money to watch his videos.
It was something I was interested in; I wouldn't have know about it without the advertising. We had an exchange of services for money.
How is this wrong?
Sure there are deceitful practices in advertising, but you're painting everyone with the same broad brush. IMHO, it is best to address the negative aspects of advertising instead of restricting communication from vendors to potential consumers.
Only if you think everyone around you is trying to deceive you.
Ads are designed to push you into taking unreasonable and uninformed decisions by showing advantages only and amplifying them and deliberately hiding the cons.
The problem is that the power of targeted advertising has been democratized (irony intended) to allow everyone to do it. It is capable enough that it can end peaceful democracies.