Has anyone actually presented studies that show that targeting advertising using fingerprinting and other invasive and hidden identification works?
Sure, google/FB and others sell that to advertisers as an advantage, but has anyone proven it works?
Google's original use of Adwords was based on my current search, didn't use my history, and didn't use anything else to identify/classify me.
Then they started adding geo location, using things like IP addresses and other out-of-band information, then cookies which allowed them to track me outside of their own site.
I don't care whether outbound lead gen is more difficult. I have no incentive to care. I have no incentive to offer my details to anyone.
Advertising has always been a manipulative business, by definition, its aim is to manipulate people into wanting to consume the product or service being advertised.
But it was constrained by the inability to target more than large demographic groups and locations.
That "pretty niche" product can still target its niche. What it can't do without the current dark patterns and tracking is target individuals. That would be a good thing.
Pre-digital tactics is not going back 50 years, it's going back 20. It's pre-9/11, pre-government-general-surveillance. That government surveillance has given tacit permission to business to do the same thing. The "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you worried about the government?" argument is applied to business now.
In short, fuck Google and FB and Amazon's need to sell targeted audiences. Their business model is flawed and has caused greater social disturbance than the overall reward.