A business’s viability outside of advertising doesn’t change the morality of advertising.

Regardless of which side of the camp you fall on, you can’t argue that ads are “good” just because some businesses need them to survive. In fact, I’d wager if a business NEEDS ads to survive, it’s probably a net negative on society as a whole.

I won’t die on that hill, but that’s my hunch.

That's when you call any type of promotion advertising, in that case, sure, there is some innocent advertising. People here are (obviously) talking about 'modern' advertising which is what google/fb etc are doing which is just plain bad for everyone except for Google shareholders (I would imagine, besides money, it's not even good for the people working on it as it must do your head in to be a brilliant engineer and then working on tech so miserable and foul as that).

> tech so miserable and foul as that

The tech is fine. The toxic parts (data collection, spying, etc) aren't even in the ad tech divisions and aren't done for advertising purposes.

They collect data because it gives them bargaining power and a seat at the table with state-level actors.

Uh… sure that’s an oversimplified reduction. We were specifically discussing advertising within the context of Google and online advertising.

It’s not even debated that advertising as it exists with Google, for the sake of profit at all costs is a net-negative in society.

It’s not the same as putting a sign by the road.