> not something malicious as it has been portrayed often recently. That's a good point, in that they may not malicious by intent. We do have to look into what

> not something malicious as it has been portrayed often recently. That's a good point, in that they may not malicious by intent. We do have to look into what effect they're having and whether that's what we actually want. Accepting it as okay because it wasn't done with the intent to harm or accepting it as that's just the way it is is not acceptable, in my opinion. > "Ads have moved from being ostensibly invisible, to literally invisible. That is the line we're drawing?" I'm not sure I follow you here. I do think there is a qualitative difference between advertising in a way that is visible to inspection by others and that which is targeted to the individual. One example, from a consumer protection standpoint, how can you ensure truth in advertising if you don't know what ads are being shown to different demographics? In a political context, this is even more problematic. We're having a hard enough time agreeing on basic facts in some circumstances. If different populations are seeing different political advertisements, and people can't know what others are being exposed to, it leads to a situation which is potentially even more insidious. This is different from what has come before. I see shades of the naturalistic fallacy here: just because this is the way it is doesn't mean it's the way we want it or the way it has to be.