The argument against homeopathy (if there is one, I admit I have no interest in the subject and have no direct knowledge) is that there is significant contradic

The argument against homeopathy (if there is one, I admit I have no interest in the subject and have no direct knowledge) is that there is significant contradictory evidence that shows there is no correlation between the treatment and the outcomes. It isn't: "I thought about it and don't see why it should work so I think it mustn't" I would love, just once, for yet another commentator on the advertising practices of Google, Amazon, Facebook, et al to provide a shred of evidence for their baseless conjectures. But of course, there is no evidence. There is, in fact, no correlation based in fact or reality between homeopathy and the advertising practice of said companies. Just an attempt to use rhetoric to smear them based on personal agendas. You can hate the companies and their practices. You can hate advertising in general. But I see no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the techniques on rational principles alone. I have no doubt that there is a clear signal in their data that shows their practices achieve outcomes aligned with the needs and desires of their customers: the advertisers. You don't understand why because you lack of access to the data and are therefore unable to independently see that signal with your own eyes. To conclude that the companies are stupid or deceitful based on your own lack of independent confirmation is a kind of hubris that is outstanding.