You don’t need detailed tracking to run ads. Newspapers did it in the time before the internet.
What did occur, is that advertisers could not be sure of performance so placed more value on the prominence and reputation of the media source. National well reputed papers got the best deals, regardless of real world performance.
It will lead to tight localization again, as advertisers can’t rely on Google just selecting the right people to display ads to, but would have to seek specific sites to advertise on.
This it could have the side effect of killing independent journalism startups. Big media is already too entrenched.
These big newspaper websites do already sell ads directly too - DoubleClick can serve both Adsense (usually as a backup) as well as their own inventory.
There are drawbacks to every option. Given the choice between a surveillance state and a propaganda state, I will always choose the latter - at least you get some agency over what media you consume and which statements you believe. Surveillance is forced on you, and invisibly at that.
> You don’t need detailed tracking to run ads. Newspapers did it in the time before the internet.
Newspapers did it to some extent, and they were not competitive businesses against methods where tracking does exist.
The reality is that newspapers are still very strong lobbyists, especially in newspapers, as they frequently sink politicians who don't toe their line with unrelated scandal or just plain fantasy. If Google pushes this they are likely to find legislation, particularly in the EU, mandating quite the opposite to what you want.
What did occur, is that advertisers could not be sure of performance so placed more value on the prominence and reputation of the media source. National well reputed papers got the best deals, regardless of real world performance.
It will lead to tight localization again, as advertisers can’t rely on Google just selecting the right people to display ads to, but would have to seek specific sites to advertise on.
The world will be fine.