They're serving first party targeted ads based on only their own data. If you're going to complain about that, it's close to saying that websites shouldn't be able to make money from advertising at all.
On top of that, they were ads for doing more of what the user was doing right then, tailored to tastes we'd seen them exhibit over time. Our goal was that the ads should be relevant enough that they served as an exploration mechanism within the site/app. We didn't always do as well as we hoped there, but it was a lot better than what you see on most of the internet. And far less intrusive because they weren't random (i.e., un-targeted). I have run ad blockers plus used whole house DNS ad blocking as long as I've been aware of them, but I was fine working on these ads because it felt to me like ads done right.
If we can't even allow for ads done right, then vast swaths of the internet have to be pay-walled or disappear. One consequence of that... only the rich get to use most of the internet. That's already too true as it is, I don't want to see it go further.
In fact one of my bigger problems have been that Google has served me generic ads that are so misplaced they go far into attempted insult territory (shady dating sites, pay-to-win "strategy games" etc).
This is the case. Advertising is a scourge, psychological warfare waged by corporations against our minds and wallets. Advertisers have no moral qualms, they will exploit any psychololgical weakness to shill products, no matter how harmful. Find a "market" of teenagers with social issues? Show them ads of happy young people frolicking with friends to make them buy your carbonated sugar water; never mind that your product will rot their teeth and make them fat. Advertisers don't care about whether products are actually good for people, all they care about is successful shilling.
Advertising is warfare waged by corporations against people and pretending otherwise makes you vulnerable to it. To fight back effectively we must use adblockers and advocate for advertising bans. If your website cannot exist without targeted advertising, then it is better for it to not exist.
Oh, and they don't get to vote because voting day and locations can't be advertised by the government, especially in targeted mailings that are personalized with your party affiliation and location. The US Postal Service will also collapse, so those mailings can't go out, even if allowed. At least the rich can still search for their polling location on the web [<- sarcasm].
None of that is okay with me. More/better regulation? Yes! But our world doesn't know how to function without ads. Being absolute about banning ads is unrealistic and takes focus away from achieving better regulation, thereby playing into the hands of the worst advertisers.
Not my problem. Those companies, and any other with business models reliant on advertising, don't have a right to exist. If your business can't be profitable without child labor, your business has no right to exist. This is no different.