He did not say that an alternative would be more profitable. What he meant is that right now, because targeted ads exist, non-targeted ads sell far worse. Once

He did not say that an alternative would be more profitable. What he meant is that right now, because targeted ads exist, non-targeted ads sell far worse. Once targeted ads are not an option anymore, non-targeted ads will get more attention again, because the demand for advertising will not go away. There will be somewhat of a drop in demand, because advertising might be less effective, so it makes more sense for companies to invest into developing their products instead. But you can hardly justify unethical behaviour with some industry making money off of it. Drug dealing, slavery, forced prostitution etc. are also illegal, even though there's a hugely profitable market for those. You have to draw the line somewhere. Governments are supposed to draw the line there, where the effect of doing something results in a net negative for this society by given values that this society considers important. But even assuming a society only cares about its overall profit, I would be surprised if there's not some effects going on, due to targeted advertising being sharp enough of a tool to psychologically influence people to buy useless crap they don't need. And people buying useless crap they don't need is not good for the overall profit of a society. They could be buying useful crap that they can use to make more of a profit instead.