What a silly argument, the magazine is not the advertiser. It's fine for content to target groups but not ads! You can have a men's magazine and the ads on there can target men, you can't have a men's magazine that sends out prints with ads targeting specific subsets of men. Content targeting is fine, user targeting is not.

"You can have a men's magazine and the ads on there can target men"

"you can't have a men's magazine that sends out prints with ads targeting specific subsets of men."

Is anyone else trying to understand the distinction that's being made here? Does the "sends out prints" here differ in some vital way?

What part doesn't make sense. Sends out different prints containing targeted ads to specific subscribers as opposed to the advertiser targeting the content. Are you arguing to prove some point?

The added "different" makes more sense. So a magazine wouldn't be allowed to send out different magazines for subscribers in New York versus LA?

No, as in specific subscribers will have specific ad pages. Like 'Joe' from montana will have ads tailored to him based on his demogeaphics and other data points collected on him. This doesn't happen with magazines but I was saying the equivalent of targeted ads is that

So you are saying articles about best jobs targeted by gender will not create social bubbles, but an ad will do so?

No, I did not say that.

I did not say anything about the content of articles, my comment was entirely about ads. If the article contains some topic and the ad targets that topic, the ad is not creating any new bubble. If the ad targets the user specifically because the user belongs to some group then ads are influencing specific groups in specific ways and forming new bubbles advantafeous to the highest bidder.

An ad for something men would like on a men's magazine or website targets men because they are already visiting a men specific content. An ad about the same thing on a random news site because the user is believed to be a man influences the user and other similar users to be influenced in the same way, even when they're not interacting with content specific to their membership of some group. This seems harmless but in reality the groups targeted are much more specific. So you may have those ads targeting "white men between 25-30,with college degree and living in an affuent neighborhood" , so in reality you now have that specific micro group being influenced differently, forming new bubbles. Men who don't also fit that criteria are not targeted, and are not influenced to buy nice undies. Replace undies with other more nefarious things (e.g.: food, medication,housing,job opportunities,etc...) And you can appreciate how ads are essentially micro-segregating people into bubbles based on statistical presumptions. Now if a usee visits a content,ads relevant to that content make a lot of sense. The problem is the user being targeted when they don't interact with relevant content and users interacting with relevant content not receiving relevant ads (e.g.: spouse reading about a gift for her husband won't see the nice undie ads).

Ads affect much more than what we buy, they affect out associations,peferences and views on subject matters. Non-consensual surveillance (stalking) should not be used to influence very specific groups of people. Now, I don't get why you have a problem with that?