> OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being

> OP’s acknowledgment is not entirely valid - their business models don’t rely on ads per se. Rather the nature of capital and free markets leads to them being snuffed out by bigger ones. As the OP, I would argue against this. I don't fully understand what you mean by the 'nature of capital and free markets' unless that's just a fancy term for 'the rich get richer'. Let's take... idk a knitting business for example. A single entreprenuer knits and sells hats. In no way, shape, or form, does successfully selling knit items require tracking people from all over the nation/state/city, and all the small personal details of their lives, in order to sell them hats. This is not to say advertising is not essential/important. But there are many options: A) cold-calls B) networking your friends/family C) print and post flyers D) Post on your personal/business social media accts E) have your own website F) Rent a billboard G) pay for space in magazines/newspapers H) try in-person sales, and so on and so forth. This winner-take-all mentality is bizarre. Just because carhartt, for example, will always sell more hats than "Nina Knitter Co." doesn't mean she can't run a successful business. Running a successful small business has never and will never require invading the privacy of your potential customers. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a morally bankrupt POS. Edit: To better address the quoted text: These businesses DO rely on ads, and that is entirely of their own making and their unwillingness to choose other avenues of growth/advertising that are not exploitatative on such a massive scale. AND, if they have explored those options and found that it is not profitable to do so, then they are complicit in the theft and violation of privacy.