It is just so obviously wrong to treat your users like this, the only way to cope with it is literally to take on a mindset that devalues the users (”If they are stupid enough, they deserve it”) or to downplay the impact assymetrical information practices have on the society (Post-Privacy: “You have nothing to hide anyways”).
What it all boils down to is, that you make someone consent to something they don’t understand and that they might not consent to if you put it to them in clear understandable terms. Add nudging and other dark patterns on top and you are going into evil territory.
But no one wants to be evil, so they try to paint an utopia that fits their behaviour, rather than making their behaviour fit an utopia. This is a problem because as the russian writer puts it:
“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
(Fyodor Dostoevsky)
Basically, your argument seems fully generalized:
> Even untargetted ads exploit peoples insecurities to sell them things they're better off without.
Eg I assume you do not want to demonize bakers selling bread to hungry people? Or more generally, anyone selling any product you do not agree with to someone who has a need you don't like?
So where do we draw the line, and why?
I'm not saying thay laws shouldn't exist though. I just believe that browsers that are actively hostile to tracking are more effective than laws.