I mean, this has been the argument for a long time, hasn’t it? I’m not saying I don’t agree-- I think you and I do think very alike on this. Ultimately, sandboxes are better than the free-for-alls. For all practical reasons, this is not a bad move-- it’s a net positive. If we must address the question of ‘is the Acceptable Ads initiative a good step’, then yes it is.
That’s just not a very engaging answer to the question you’re posing, is it? Addressing the question on the terms of ‘is the initiative a net positive?’ just results in ‘well, yes, because it is less bad’-- that’s just the objective truth.
My objection, then, is more of a reminder: Google can’t meaningfully tackle these problems because Google makes money off them. Is that a moral wrong? No, they’re a corporation-- it is in their right to operate as they wish. But the walled garden is a compromise, not a solution. We operate and advocate for privacy solutions based on our options.
But, well… is that all that one should stand for? Privacy has to come with some ideological backbone. If you don’t believe things can be better, if we just settle for two or three companies doing their very best to just keep some of your data… then what do we stand for?