All laws are problematic like this. That is why we have courts, judges, and juries to sort of specific applications. However, for the purpose of establishing a

All laws are problematic like this. That is why we have courts, judges, and juries to sort of specific applications. However, for the purpose of establishing a rule, this really is straight forward if we don't mince words. The author of the article pretty clearly wants to eliminate the incentive for invasive data collection so the ad forms to be banned are the ones that require invasive data collection in order to be of value. The precise selectors that enable Facebook's ad platform to target ads at specific types of people and provide feedback on who saw what ad are the ones to be banned. Ads placed on Facebook group pages and which do not track which specific users saw which ads, would not be banned because those are targeting a digital location rather than people who have specific characteristics. Similarly, there is no reason to say of a given billboard "that is regionally targeted, let's ban that too" if the billboard is not currently capable of conducting eye gaze tracking on every passerby and matching car occupants to their license plate numbers and building a profile on where those people travel every day for the purpose of showing similar ads along their routes. Any billboard that could do such things, should also be banned. The Brave browser case would probably be borderline but so long as it is not providing feedback to the ads in the form of "this person-id saw your ad-id because they previously looked at x, y, and z" then it's probably fine. If they start sharing the data they collect "locally" then that, too, should be banned. However, if they were to prompt the users with something like "would you like to submit feedback on this ad to the advertiser", that would of course be acceptable.