The assumption is that all users are actively making a choice. Many are not aware of the choices they are making, and I think it's wrong to punish them for it -- when companies profit off this lack of literacy and people rush to their defense whenever people start talking about regulation.
I don't want companies like Google and Amazon to be able to hoard massive amounts of personal information about a large portion of the world's population, and not have to respect the rights of the people whose information they have acquired.
> You want a spectrum of financial products that depositors can choose from according to their risk tolerance.
If effectively everyone of importance just uses Amazon (or Google) ads then you don't get a "spectrum" and there's no choice involved. You have an option to either use or not use a majority of the internet. Yes, you can use ad-blockers but that's not a long-term solution.
> A site sending your browser Amazon ads does not oblige it to execute or display them. And this isn't some secret backend upload. If someone is willing to use a site with this revenue model, why is that your business?
Most users are not aware of how these things work. I agree that if everyone knew how to block those ads and what the actual problems are with them, then things like GDPR might be less necessary (though the right to retract consent is something that should be enforced).
But even then, ad-blockers are a defense against an industry that is over-stepping ethical boundaries every day. At which point do you say that companies which inflict systemic violations of ethics on billions of people should be held accountable? Or is it always the fault of the people because they didn't care enough about their personal information?