I don't tend to pattern match on speech/content patterns of groups I disagree with.
You have half the country distrust anything with ads for guns, and the other half distrust anything that uses words like "woke" or "white supremacy."
Just as we restrict advertising to kids so ought we restrict advertising to the elderly.
There are claims of letting people know about products, or "driving consumer demand," but they fall apart as you dig deeper.
It's not clear how it ought to be regulated, but it ought to be regulated. It ought have been regulated a long, long time go, actually. When banner ads popped up on the Internet in the nineties was a much easier time than 2020, when we have trillion-dollar businesses pushing back.
Advertising is generally dishonest and predatory. It also tends to be AB tested and targeted enough that it doesn't feel dishonest to the readership of any particular venue. I just went to:
* Huff Post, and the first ad was: "Groundbreaking Device Exposes Greedy Internet Providers While Speeding Up Your Slow Internet"
* NYTimes, and the second ad was a sketchy "Bitcoin is the future/Invest Now"
* Wa Post: "Internet Providers Don't Want You Buying One, but They're Not Illegal"
Most venues don't have much control over the ads they serve. It's usually done through ad networks. I think Wa Post and NYTimes are top-notch journalism, while Huff Post is a sensationalist rag.