Ask yourself this: Would you rather have targeted ads, for something you might be interested in, or completely random junk you couldn't care less about? Targeted advertising benefits both you and the advertiser.
If advertising was targeted at the browser level (the browser has access to the entire catalog of ads out there and then does the selection locally based on sites/services I interacted with previously) then I would be in favor of that.
Finally you are omitting a third option in your comparison: how about no advertising at all? Preferring paid services over ad-supported ones and countermeasures like uBlock Origin make that a real possibility. I can't recall the last time I've seen a proper ad online (in fact my problem with the parent's idea is more about the data sharing than the ads themselves since I won't see the ads anyway).
No advertising isn't a viable option in this world. I'd go as far as to say that the Internet, as we know it today, would not exist without targeted ads.
Society has laws for a reason when its constituents decide that certain behavior is detrimental to it and should be outlawed & discouraged by the use of appropriate punishment. I don't see why this shouldn't apply here? The GDPR is in fact a step in that direction, though its enforcement is severely lacking.
> No advertising isn't a viable option in this world.
This is debatable but it's a discussion for another thread.
> I'd go as far as to say that the Internet, as we know it today, would not exist without targeted ads.
The Internet originally was about sharing information freely. It facilitated commerce to a certain extent but commerce wasn't its core purpose. The internet as well have nowadays has actually become worse because of the increased focus on commerce & advertising.
The movie folks now know that I am very interested in this movie. They can choose to target me for a small coupon advertisement, knowing that I will likely claim it and consider it a win.
Simultaneously they can target people on FB that they think are Batman fans (but who have not signed up for their email list) with a more generous coupon.
So while I am seeing advertisements for relevant products, I may be seeing less-generous offers than I would see in a world without tracking.
As yourself this: How do you feel about the possibility of any personal information you give to any company may be given to others without your consent (or "with your consent" behind a huge wall of "this is how we use your data, take it or leave it"), and for those companies to sell it to data arrgrators to build a complete picture of you, to sell it to anyone with enough cash?
However, what you describe already happens and has for decades, in the offline world. Tons of personal info, like real estate and voter records, are already public in many jurisdictions anyway. Insurance companies, credit card companies, phone companies, and everyone else all take this stuff and spam the hell out of everyone.
Criminal activities hurt people. Ads do not.
Especially in this case where PII data is not being provided to the advertising company.
They do. Advertising's whole purpose is to manipulate people into doing what companies want them to do. Not every company has your best interests in mind. Due to this inherent conflict of interest, ads should be viewed with healthy suspicion at best.
Banning tobacco ads helped reduce smoking in my country. We should ban a whole lot more.
There are plenty of scams and malware being spread through ads. Furthermore ads are a parasite that wastes most people's time for no benefit with no official way for them to opt-out (a lot of services don't allow you to pay money to opt-out); it'a a cancer on society.
> Especially in this case where PII data is not being provided to the advertising company.
You are literally talking about capturing e-mail addresses so you can pass them to an advertising partner to target ads to these users. How is that not PII?
Need creation is not a benefit.